Isabel P Almeida1, Lotte E J R Schyns1, Michel C Öllers1, Wouter van Elmpt1, Katia Parodi2, Guillaume Landry2, Frank Verhaegen1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Am Coulombwall 1, 85748, Garching b. München, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess image quality and to quantify the accuracy of relative electron densities (ρe ) and effective atomic numbers (Zeff ) for three dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) scanners: a novel single-source split-filter (i.e., twin-beam) and two dual-source scanners. METHODS: Measurements were made with a second generation dual-source scanner at 80/140Sn kVp, a third-generation twin-beam single-source scanner at 120 kVp with gold (Au) and tin (Sn) filters, and a third-generation dual-source scanner at 90/150Sn kVp. Three phantoms with tissue inserts were scanned and used for calibration and validation of parameterized methods to extract ρe and Zeff , whereas iodine and calcium inserts were used to quantify Contrast-to-Noise-Ratio (CNR). Spatial resolution in tomographic images was also tested. RESULTS: The third-generation scanners have an image resolution of 6.2, ~0.5 lp/cm higher than the second generation scanner. The twin-beam scanner has low imaging contrast for iodine materials due to its limited spectral separation. The parameterization methods resulted in calibrations with low fit residuals for the dual-source scanners, yielding values of ρe and Zeff close to the reference values (errors within 1.2% for ρe and 6.2% for Zeff for a dose of 20 mGy, excluding lung substitute tissues). The twin-beam scanner presented overall higher errors (within 3.2% for ρe and 28% for Zeff , also excluding lung inserts) and also larger variations for uniform inserts. CONCLUSIONS: Spatial resolution is similar for the three scanners. The twin-beam is able to derive ρe and Zeff , but with inferior accuracy compared to both dual-source scanners.
PURPOSE: To assess image quality and to quantify the accuracy of relative electron densities (ρe ) and effective atomic numbers (Zeff ) for three dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) scanners: a novel single-source split-filter (i.e., twin-beam) and two dual-source scanners. METHODS: Measurements were made with a second generation dual-source scanner at 80/140Sn kVp, a third-generation twin-beam single-source scanner at 120 kVp with gold (Au) and tin (Sn) filters, and a third-generation dual-source scanner at 90/150Sn kVp. Three phantoms with tissue inserts were scanned and used for calibration and validation of parameterized methods to extract ρe and Zeff , whereas iodine and calcium inserts were used to quantify Contrast-to-Noise-Ratio (CNR). Spatial resolution in tomographic images was also tested. RESULTS: The third-generation scanners have an image resolution of 6.2, ~0.5 lp/cm higher than the second generation scanner. The twin-beam scanner has low imaging contrast for iodine materials due to its limited spectral separation. The parameterization methods resulted in calibrations with low fit residuals for the dual-source scanners, yielding values of ρe and Zeff close to the reference values (errors within 1.2% for ρe and 6.2% for Zeff for a dose of 20 mGy, excluding lung substitute tissues). The twin-beam scanner presented overall higher errors (within 3.2% for ρe and 28% for Zeff , also excluding lung inserts) and also larger variations for uniform inserts. CONCLUSIONS: Spatial resolution is similar for the three scanners. The twin-beam is able to derive ρe and Zeff , but with inferior accuracy compared to both dual-source scanners.
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
Authors: Jerimy C Polf; Matthew M Mille; Sina Mossahebi; Haijian Chen; Paul Maggi; Huaiyu Chen-Mayer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Matthias Stefan May; Marco Wiesmueller; Rafael Heiss; Michael Brand; Joscha Bruegel; Michael Uder; Wolfgang Wuest Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ross Edward Taylor; Pamela Mager; Nam C Yu; David P Katz; Jett R Brady; Nakul Gupta Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Elisabeth Appel; Christoph Thomas; Andrea Steuwe; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Olga R Brook; Joel Aissa; Jörg Hennenlotter; Gerald Antoch; Johannes Boos Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 3.039