Vasiliki Chatzaraki1,2, Alessandra Bolsi3, Rahel A Kubik-Huch1, Bernhard Schmidt4, Antony John Lomax3, Damien C Weber3, Michael Thali2, Tilo Niemann5. 1. Department of Radiology, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland. 2. Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), ETH Domain, Villigen, Switzerland. 4. Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland; Tilo.Niemann@ksb.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The effective atomic number (Zeff) and electron density relative to water (ρe or Rho) of elements can be derived in dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). The aim of this phantom study was to investigate the effect of different photon energies, radiation doses, and reconstruction kernels on Zeff and Rho measured in DECT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anthropomorphic head phantom including five probes of known composition was scanned under three tube-voltage combinations in DECT: Sn140/100 kV, 140/80 kV and Sn140/80 kV with incremented radiation doses. Raw data were reconstructed with four reconstruction kernels (I30, I40, I50, and I70). Rho and Zeff were measured for each probe for all possible combinations of scan and reconstruction parameters. RESULTS: DECT-based Rho and Zeff closely approached the reference values with a mean and maximum error of 1.7% and 6.8%, respectively. Rho was lower for 140/80 kV compared with Sn140/100 kV and Sn140/80 kV with differences being 0.009. Zeff differed among all tube voltages with the most prominent difference being 0.28 between 140/80 kV and Sn140/100 kV. Zeff was lower in I70 compared with those of I30 and I40 with a difference of 0.07. Varying radiation dose yielded a variation of 0.0002 in Rho and 0.03 in Z, both considered negligible in practice. CONCLUSION: DECT comprises a feasible method for the extraction of material-specific information. Slight variations should be taken into account when different radiation doses, photon energies, and kernels are applied; however, they are considered small and in practice not crucial for an effective tissue differentiation. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: The effective atomic number (Zeff) and electron density relative to water (ρe or Rho) of elements can be derived in dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). The aim of this phantom study was to investigate the effect of different photon energies, radiation doses, and reconstruction kernels on Zeff and Rho measured in DECT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anthropomorphic head phantom including five probes of known composition was scanned under three tube-voltage combinations in DECT: Sn140/100 kV, 140/80 kV and Sn140/80 kV with incremented radiation doses. Raw data were reconstructed with four reconstruction kernels (I30, I40, I50, and I70). Rho and Zeff were measured for each probe for all possible combinations of scan and reconstruction parameters. RESULTS: DECT-based Rho and Zeff closely approached the reference values with a mean and maximum error of 1.7% and 6.8%, respectively. Rho was lower for 140/80 kV compared with Sn140/100 kV and Sn140/80 kV with differences being 0.009. Zeff differed among all tube voltages with the most prominent difference being 0.28 between 140/80 kV and Sn140/100 kV. Zeff was lower in I70 compared with those of I30 and I40 with a difference of 0.07. Varying radiation dose yielded a variation of 0.0002 in Rho and 0.03 in Z, both considered negligible in practice. CONCLUSION: DECT comprises a feasible method for the extraction of material-specific information. Slight variations should be taken into account when different radiation doses, photon energies, and kernels are applied; however, they are considered small and in practice not crucial for an effective tissue differentiation. Copyright
Authors: Ren Yuan; John R Mayo; James C Hogg; Peter D Paré; Annette M McWilliams; Stephen Lam; Harvey O Coxson Journal: Chest Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Nora Hünemohr; Bernhard Krauss; Christoph Tremmel; Benjamin Ackermann; Oliver Jäkel; Steffen Greilich Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan; Xinhui Duan; Yin Xi; Matthew A Lewis; Margaret S Pearle; Jodi A Antonelli; Harold Goerne; Elysha M Kolitz; Suhny Abbara; Robert E Lenkinski; Julia R Fielding; John R Leyendecker Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-11
Authors: Guillaume Landry; Brigitte Reniers; Patrick Vincent Granton; Bart van Rooijen; Luc Beaulieu; Joachim E Wildberger; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David S Gierada; Andrew J Bierhals; Cliff K Choong; Seth T Bartel; Jon H Ritter; Nitin A Das; Cheng Hong; Thomas K Pilgram; Kyongtae T Bae; Bruce R Whiting; Jason C Woods; James C Hogg; Barbara A Lutey; Richard J Battafarano; Joel D Cooper; Bryan F Meyers; G Alexander Patterson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.173