OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether the low- to high-kVp computed tomography (CT) number ratio at dual-energy CT is affected by changes in patient diameter. METHODS: Seven contrast-producing elements were housed sequentially within an abdomen phantom. Fat rings enlarged the phantom diameter from 26 to 44 cm. The phantom was scanned using single-energy CT at tube potentials of 80 and 140 kVp and rapid-kVp-switching dual-energy CT. RESULTS: CT numbers decreased proportionally (∼20% CT number reduction for smallest to largest phantom diameters) for low- and high-energy acquisitions but resulted in consistent dual-energy ratios for each contrast element. For 17 of 21 material pair combinations, the dual-energy ratio ranges of the two elements did not overlap, implying that discrimination should remain possible for these material pairs at all patient sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The dual-energy ratio for different contrast materials is largely unaffected by changes in phantom diameter. This should allow for robust separation of most contrast material combinations irrespective of patient size.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether the low- to high-kVp computed tomography (CT) number ratio at dual-energy CT is affected by changes in patient diameter. METHODS: Seven contrast-producing elements were housed sequentially within an abdomen phantom. Fat rings enlarged the phantom diameter from 26 to 44 cm. The phantom was scanned using single-energy CT at tube potentials of 80 and 140 kVp and rapid-kVp-switching dual-energy CT. RESULTS: CT numbers decreased proportionally (∼20% CT number reduction for smallest to largest phantom diameters) for low- and high-energy acquisitions but resulted in consistent dual-energy ratios for each contrast element. For 17 of 21 material pair combinations, the dual-energy ratio ranges of the two elements did not overlap, implying that discrimination should remain possible for these material pairs at all patient sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The dual-energy ratio for different contrast materials is largely unaffected by changes in phantom diameter. This should allow for robust separation of most contrast material combinations irrespective of patient size.
Authors: Andrew S Torres; Peter J Bonitatibus; Robert E Colborn; Gregory D Goddard; Paul F FitzGerald; Brian D Lee; Michael E Marino Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Jack W Lambert; Yuxin Sun; Karen G Ordovas; Robert G Gould; Sizhe Wang; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Anushri Parakh; Chansik An; Simon Lennartz; Prabhakar Rajiah; Benjamin M Yeh; Frank J Simeone; Dushyant V Sahani; Avinash R Kambadakone Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Markus M Obmann; Gopal Punjabi; Verena C Obmann; Daniel T Boll; Tobias Heye; Matthias R Benz; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-06-30