Literature DB >> 26895193

Initial Results of a Single-Source Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Technique Using a Split-Filter: Assessment of Image Quality, Radiation Dose, and Accuracy of Dual-Energy Applications in an In Vitro and In Vivo Study.

André Euler1, Anushri Parakh, Anna L Falkowski, Sebastian Manneck, David Dashti, Bernhard Krauss, Zsolt Szucs-Farkas, Sebastian T Schindera.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the image quality, radiation dose, and accuracy of virtual noncontrast images and iodine quantification of split-filter dual-energy computed tomography (CT) using a single x-ray source in a phantom and patient study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a phantom study, objective image quality and accuracy of iodine quantification were evaluated for the split-filter dual-energy mode using a tin and gold filter. In a patient study, objective image quality and radiation dose were compared in thoracoabdominal CT of 50 patients between the standard single-energy and split-filter dual-energy mode. The radiation dose was estimated by size-specific dose estimate. To evaluate the accuracy of virtual noncontrast imaging, attenuation measurements in the liver, spleen, and muscle were compared between a true noncontrast premonitoring scan and the virtual noncontrast images of the dual-energy scans. Descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test were used.
RESULTS: In the phantom study, differences between the real and measured iodine concentration ranged from 2.2% to 21.4%. In the patient study, the single-energy and dual-energy protocols resulted in similar image noise (7.4 vs 7.1 HU, respectively; P = 0.43) and parenchymal contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values for the liver (29.2 vs 28.5, respectively; P = 0.88). However, the vascular CNR value for the single-energy protocol was significantly higher than for the dual-energy protocol (10.0 vs 7.1, respectively; P = 0.006). The difference in the measured attenuation between the true and the virtual noncontrast images ranged from 3.1 to 6.7 HU. The size-specific dose estimate of the dual-energy protocol was, on average, 17% lower than that of the single-energy protocol (11.7 vs 9.7 mGy, respectively; P = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: Split-filter dual-energy compared with single-energy CT results in similar objective image noise in addition to dual-energy capabilities at 17% lower radiation dose. Because of beam hardening, split-filter dual-energy can lead to decreased CNR values of iodinated structures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26895193     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  29 in total

1.  Detective quantum efficiency of photon-counting CdTe and Si detectors for computed tomography: a simulation study.

Authors:  Mats Persson; Adam Wang; Norbert J Pelc
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-07-17

2.  Dual-energy CT: a phantom comparison of different platforms for abdominal imaging.

Authors:  Thorsten Sellerer; Peter B Noël; Manuel Patino; Anushri Parakh; Sebastian Ehn; Sascha Zeiter; Jasmin A Holz; Johannes Hammel; Alexander A Fingerle; Franz Pfeiffer; David Maintz; Ernst J Rummeny; Daniela Muenzel; Dushyant V Sahani
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Model-based material decomposition with a penalized nonlinear least-squares CT reconstruction algorithm.

Authors:  Steven Tilley; Wojciech Zbijewski; J Webster Stayman
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Low-dose dual-energy CT for stone characterization: a systematic comparison of two generations of split-filter single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT.

Authors:  Dominik Nakhostin; Thomas Sartoretti; Matthias Eberhard; Bernhard Krauss; Daniel Müller; Hatem Alkadhi; André Euler
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-11-07

5.  Accuracy of spectral curves at different phantom sizes and iodine concentrations using dual-source dual-energy computed tomography.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Sato; Ryota Kageyama; Yuta Sawatani; Hirokazu Takano; Shingo Kayano; Yumi Takane; Haruo Saito
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2021-02-02

Review 6.  Dual-energy CT: theoretical principles and clinical applications.

Authors:  Andrea Agostini; Alessandra Borgheresi; Alberto Mari; Chiara Floridi; Federico Bruno; Marina Carotti; Nicolò Schicchi; Antonio Barile; Stefania Maggi; Andrea Giovagnoni
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 7.  Status and innovations in pre-treatment CT imaging for proton therapy.

Authors:  Patrick Wohlfahrt; Christian Richter
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between split-filter dual-energy images and single-energy images in single-source abdominal CT.

Authors:  André Euler; Markus M Obmann; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Achille Mileto; Caroline Zaehringer; Anna L Falkowski; David J Winkel; Daniele Marin; Bram Stieltjes; Bernhard Krauss; Sebastian T Schindera
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Development of a dual-energy computed tomography quality control program: Characterization of scanner response and definition of relevant parameters for a fast-kVp switching dual-energy computed tomography system.

Authors:  Jessica L Nute; Megan C Jacobsen; Wolfgang Stefan; Wei Wei; Dianna D Cody
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  How accurate and precise are CT based measurements of iodine concentration? A comparison of the minimum detectable concentration difference among single source and dual source dual energy CT in a phantom study.

Authors:  André Euler; Justin Solomon; Maciej A Mazurowski; Ehsan Samei; Rendon C Nelson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.