OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to quantitatively assess two new scan modes on a photon-counting detector computed tomography system, each designed to maximize spatial resolution, and to qualitatively demonstrate potential clinical impact using patient data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability Act-compliant study was approved by our institutional review board. Two high-spatial-resolution scan modes (Sharp and UHR) were evaluated using phantoms to quantify spatial resolution and image noise, and results were compared with the standard mode (Macro). Patients were scanned using a conventional energy-integrating detector scanner and the photon-counting detector scanner using the same radiation dose. In first patient images, anatomic details were qualitatively evaluated to demonstrate potential clinical impact. RESULTS: Sharp and UHR modes had a 69% and 87% improvement in in-plane spatial resolution, respectively, compared with Macro mode (10% modulation-translation-function values of 16.05, 17.69, and 9.48 lp/cm, respectively). The cutoff spatial frequency of the UHR mode (32.4 lp/cm) corresponded to a limiting spatial resolution of 150 μm. The full-width-at-half-maximum values of the section sensitivity profiles were 0.41, 0.44, and 0.67 mm for the thinnest image thickness for each mode (0.25, 0.25, and 0.5 mm, respectively). At the same in-plane spatial resolution, Sharp and UHR images had up to 15% lower noise than Macro images. Patient images acquired in Sharp mode demonstrated better delineation of fine anatomic structures compared with Macro mode images. CONCLUSIONS: Phantom studies demonstrated superior resolution and noise properties for the Sharp and UHR modes relative to the standard Macro mode and patient images demonstrated the potential benefit of these scan modes for clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to quantitatively assess two new scan modes on a photon-counting detector computed tomography system, each designed to maximize spatial resolution, and to qualitatively demonstrate potential clinical impact using patient data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability Act-compliant study was approved by our institutional review board. Two high-spatial-resolution scan modes (Sharp and UHR) were evaluated using phantoms to quantify spatial resolution and image noise, and results were compared with the standard mode (Macro). Patients were scanned using a conventional energy-integrating detector scanner and the photon-counting detector scanner using the same radiation dose. In first patient images, anatomic details were qualitatively evaluated to demonstrate potential clinical impact. RESULTS:Sharp and UHR modes had a 69% and 87% improvement in in-plane spatial resolution, respectively, compared with Macro mode (10% modulation-translation-function values of 16.05, 17.69, and 9.48 lp/cm, respectively). The cutoff spatial frequency of the UHR mode (32.4 lp/cm) corresponded to a limiting spatial resolution of 150 μm. The full-width-at-half-maximum values of the section sensitivity profiles were 0.41, 0.44, and 0.67 mm for the thinnest image thickness for each mode (0.25, 0.25, and 0.5 mm, respectively). At the same in-plane spatial resolution, Sharp and UHR images had up to 15% lower noise than Macro images. Patient images acquired in Sharp mode demonstrated better delineation of fine anatomic structures compared with Macro mode images. CONCLUSIONS: Phantom studies demonstrated superior resolution and noise properties for the Sharp and UHR modes relative to the standard Macro mode and patient images demonstrated the potential benefit of these scan modes for clinical practice.
Authors: J P Schlomka; E Roessl; R Dorscheid; S Dill; G Martens; T Istel; C Bäumer; C Herrmann; R Steadman; G Zeitler; A Livne; R Proksa Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-07-08 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: James R Bennett; Alex M T Opie; Qiong Xu; Hengyong Yu; Michael Walsh; Anthony Butler; Phillip Butler; Guohua Cao; Aaron Mohs; Ge Wang Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Sebastian Faby; Stefan Kuchenbecker; Stefan Sawall; David Simons; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Michael Lell; Marc Kachelrieß Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Shuai Leng; Zhicong Yu; Ahmed Halaweish; Steffen Kappler; Katharina Hahn; Andre Henning; Zhoubo Li; John Lane; David L Levin; Steven Jorgensen; Erik Ritman; Cynthia McCollough Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-12-22
Authors: Amir Pourmorteza; Rolf Symons; Veit Sandfort; Marissa Mallek; Matthew K Fuld; Gregory Henderson; Elizabeth C Jones; Ashkan A Malayeri; Les R Folio; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wei Zhou; David J Bartlett; Felix E Diehn; Katrina N Glazebrook; Amy L Kotsenas; Rickey E Carter; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Shuai Leng; Michael Bruesewitz; Shengzhen Tao; Kishore Rajendran; Ahmed F Halaweish; Norbert G Campeau; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiographics Date: 2019 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Joakim da Silva; Fredrik Grönberg; Björn Cederström; Mats Persson; Martin Sjölin; Zlatan Alagic; Robert Bujila; Mats Danielsson Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2019-10-15
Authors: David J Bartlett; Chi Wan Koo; Brian J Bartholmai; Kishore Rajendran; Jayse M Weaver; Ahmed F Halaweish; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough; Joel G Fletcher Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 6.016