Paul FitzGerald1, Peter Edic1, Hewei Gao2, Yannan Jin1, Jiao Wang3, Ge Wang4, Bruno De Man1. 1. Imaging, GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY, 12309, USA. 2. Radiation Sensing Department, RefleXion Medical, Hayward, CA, 94545, USA. 3. Research and Engineering Department, 12 Sigma Technologies, San Diego, CA, 92122, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantitatively evaluate and compare six proposed system architectures for cardiac CT scanning. METHODS: Starting from the clinical requirements for cardiac CT, we defined six dedicated cardiac CT architectures. We selected these architectures based on a previous screening study and defined them in sufficient detail to comprehensively analyze their cost and performance. We developed rigorous comparative evaluation methods for the most important aspects of performance and cost, and we applied these evaluation criteria to the defined cardiac CT architectures. RESULTS: We found that CT system architectures based on the third-generation geometry provide nearly linear performance improvement versus the increased cost of additional beam lines (i.e., source-detector pairs), although similar performance improvement could be achieved with advanced motion-correction algorithms. The third-generation architectures outperform even the most promising of the proposed architectures that deviate substantially from the traditional CT system architectures. CONCLUSION: This work confirms the validity of the current trend in commercial CT scanner design. However, we anticipate that over time, CT hardware and software technologies will evolve, the relative importance of the performance criteria will change, the relative costs of components will vary, some of the remaining challenges will be addressed, and perhaps new candidate architectures will be identified; therefore, the conclusion of a comparative analysis like this may change. The evaluation methods that we used can provide a framework for other researchers to analyze their own proposed CT architectures.
PURPOSE: To quantitatively evaluate and compare six proposed system architectures for cardiac CT scanning. METHODS: Starting from the clinical requirements for cardiac CT, we defined six dedicated cardiac CT architectures. We selected these architectures based on a previous screening study and defined them in sufficient detail to comprehensively analyze their cost and performance. We developed rigorous comparative evaluation methods for the most important aspects of performance and cost, and we applied these evaluation criteria to the defined cardiac CT architectures. RESULTS: We found that CT system architectures based on the third-generation geometry provide nearly linear performance improvement versus the increased cost of additional beam lines (i.e., source-detector pairs), although similar performance improvement could be achieved with advanced motion-correction algorithms. The third-generation architectures outperform even the most promising of the proposed architectures that deviate substantially from the traditional CT system architectures. CONCLUSION: This work confirms the validity of the current trend in commercial CT scanner design. However, we anticipate that over time, CT hardware and software technologies will evolve, the relative importance of the performance criteria will change, the relative costs of components will vary, some of the remaining challenges will be addressed, and perhaps new candidate architectures will be identified; therefore, the conclusion of a comparative analysis like this may change. The evaluation methods that we used can provide a framework for other researchers to analyze their own proposed CT architectures.
Authors: Baodong Liu; James Bennett; Ge Wang; Bruno De Man; Kai Zeng; Zhye Yin; Paul Fitzgerald; Hengyong Yu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Qiong Xu; Xuanqin Mou; Ge Wang; Jered Sieren; Eric A Hoffman; Hengyong Yu Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Paul FitzGerald; James Bennett; Jeffrey Carr; Peter M Edic; Daniel Entrikin; Hewei Gao; Maria Iatrou; Yannan Jin; Baodong Liu; Ge Wang; Jiao Wang; Zhye Yin; Hengyong Yu; Kai Zeng; Bruno De Man Journal: J Xray Sci Technol Date: 2016 Impact factor: 1.535
Authors: Hu Chen; Yi Zhang; Yunjin Chen; Junfeng Zhang; Weihua Zhang; Huaiqiang Sun; Yang Lv; Peixi Liao; Jiliu Zhou; Ge Wang Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 10.048