Literature DB >> 33444367

A comprehensive assessment of physical image quality of five different scanners for head CT imaging as clinically used at a single hospital centre-A phantom study.

Patrizio Barca1, Fabio Paolicchi2, Giacomo Aringhieri2, Federica Palmas3, Daniela Marfisi1, Maria Evelina Fantacci3,4, Davide Caramella2, Marco Giannelli1.   

Abstract

Nowadays, given the technological advance in CT imaging and increasing heterogeneity in characteristics of CT scanners, a number of CT scanners with different manufacturers/technologies are often installed in a hospital centre and used by various departments. In this phantom study, a comprehensive assessment of image quality of 5 scanners (from 3 manufacturers and with different models) for head CT imaging, as clinically used at a single hospital centre, was hence carried out. Helical and/or sequential acquisitions of the Catphan-504 phantom were performed, using the scanning protocols (CTDIvol range: 54.7-57.5 mGy) employed by the staff of various Radiology/Neuroradiology departments of our institution for routine head examinations. CT image quality for each scanner/acquisition protocol was assessed through noise level, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), low contrast detectability (LCD) and non-uniformity index analyses. Noise values ranged from 3.5 HU to 5.7 HU across scanners/acquisition protocols. NPS curves differed in terms of peak position (range: 0.21-0.30 mm-1). A substantial variation of CNR values with scanner/acquisition protocol was observed for different contrast inserts. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean value) of CNR values across scanners/acquisition protocols was 18.3%, 31.4%, 34.2%, 30.4% and 30% for teflon, delrin, LDPE, polystyrene and acrylic insert, respectively. An appreciable difference in MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols was revealed, with a coefficient of variation of f50%/f10% of MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols of 10.1%/7.4%. A relevant difference in LCD performance of different scanners/acquisition protocols was found. The range of contrast threshold for a typical object size of 3 mm was 3.7-5.8 HU. Moreover, appreciable differences in terms of NUI values (range: 4.1%-8.3%) were found. The analysis of several quality indices showed a non-negligible variability in head CT imaging capabilities across different scanners/acquisition protocols. This highlights the importance of a physical in-depth characterization of image quality for each CT scanner as clinically used, in order to optimize CT imaging procedures.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33444367      PMCID: PMC7808662          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245374

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  71 in total

1.  Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury.

Authors:  M J Haydel; C A Preston; T J Mills; S Luber; E Blaudeau; P M DeBlieux
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-13       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  A framework for noise-power spectrum analysis of multidimensional images.

Authors:  J H Siewerdsen; I A Cunningham; D A Jaffray
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  A phantom for simplified image quality control of dental cone beam computed tomography units.

Authors:  Gerald R Torgersen; Caroline Hol; Anne Møystad; Kristina Hellén-Halme; Mats Nilsson
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol       Date:  2014-08-15

4.  Assessment of the dose reduction potential of a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm using a task-based performance metrology.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Samuel Richard
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  An Improved Index of Image Quality for Task-based Performance of CT Iterative Reconstruction across Three Commercial Implementations.

Authors:  Olav Christianson; Joseph J S Chen; Zhitong Yang; Ganesh Saiprasad; Alden Dima; James J Filliben; Adele Peskin; Christopher Trimble; Eliot L Siegel; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Dose reduction with iterative reconstruction: Optimization of CT protocols in clinical practice.

Authors:  J Greffier; F Macri; A Larbi; A Fernandez; E Khasanova; F Pereira; C Mekkaoui; J P Beregi
Journal:  Diagn Interv Imaging       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 4.026

7.  LOW-DOSE CT PROTOCOL OPTIMIZATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ACUTE APPENDICITIS: THE OPTICAP PHANTOM STUDY.

Authors:  Hannele Niiniviita; Paulina Salminen; Juha M Grönroos; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Saija Hurme; Timo Kiljunen; Jarmo Kulmala; Mika Teräs; Suvi Sippola; Johanna Virtanen
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 0.972

8.  CT image quality assessment by a Channelized Hotelling Observer (CHO): Application to protocol optimization.

Authors:  L Noferini; A Taddeucci; M Bartolini; A Bruschi; I Menchi
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 2.685

9.  Effects of various generations of iterative CT reconstruction algorithms on low-contrast detectability as a function of the effective abdominal diameter: A quantitative task-based phantom study.

Authors:  Anais Viry; Christoph Aberle; Damien Racine; Jean-François Knebel; Sebastian T Schindera; Sabine Schmidt; Fabio Becce; Francis R Verdun
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 2.685

10.  Task-based quantification of image quality using a model observer in abdominal CT: a multicentre study.

Authors:  Damien Racine; Nick Ryckx; Alexandre Ba; Fabio Becce; Anais Viry; Francis R Verdun; Sabine Schmidt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  1 in total

1.  A Review of Imaging Methods to Assess Ultrasound-Mediated Ablation.

Authors:  Brett Z Fite; James Wang; Pejman Ghanouni; Katherine W Ferrara
Journal:  BME Front       Date:  2022-05-02
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.