J C Benson1, K Rajendran2, J I Lane2, F E Diehn2, N M Weber2, J E Thorne2, N B Larson3, J G Fletcher2, C H McCollough2, S Leng2. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (J.C.B., K.R., J.I.L., F.E.D., N.M.W., J.E.T., J.G.F., C.H.M., S.L.) Benson.John3@mayo.edu. 2. From the Departments of Radiology (J.C.B., K.R., J.I.L., F.E.D., N.M.W., J.E.T., J.G.F., C.H.M., S.L.). 3. Quantitative Health Sciences (N.B.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Photon-counting detector CT is a new technology with a limiting spatial resolution of ≤150 μm. In vivo comparisons between photon-counting detector CT and conventional energy-integrating detector CT are needed to determine the clinical impact of photon counting-detector CT in temporal bone imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively recruited patients underwent temporal bone CT examinations on an investigational photon-counting detector CT system after clinically indicated temporal bone energy-integrating detector CT. Photon-counting detector CT images were obtained at an average 31% lower dose compared with those obtained on the energy-integrating detector CT scanner. Reconstructed images were evaluated in axial, coronal, and Pöschl planes using the smallest available section thickness on each system (0.4 mm on energy-integrating detector CT; 0.2 mm on photon-counting detector CT). Two blinded neuroradiologists compared images side-by-side and scored them using a 5-point Likert scale. A post hoc reassignment of readers' scores was performed so that the scores reflected photon-counting detector CT performance relative to energy-integrating detector CT. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled, resulting in 26 image sets (left and right sides). The average patient age was 63.6 [SD, 13.4] years; 7 were women. Images from the photon-counting detector CT scanner were significantly preferred by the readers in all reconstructed planes (P < .001). Photon-counting detector CT was rated superior for the evaluation of all individual anatomic structures, with the oval window (4.79) and incudostapedial joint (4.75) receiving the highest scores on a Likert scale of 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal bone CT images obtained on a photon-counting detector CT scanner were rated as having superior spatial resolution and better critical structure visualization than those obtained on a conventional energy-integrating detector scanner, even with a substantial dose reduction.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Photon-counting detector CT is a new technology with a limiting spatial resolution of ≤150 μm. In vivo comparisons between photon-counting detector CT and conventional energy-integrating detector CT are needed to determine the clinical impact of photon counting-detector CT in temporal bone imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively recruited patients underwent temporal bone CT examinations on an investigational photon-counting detector CT system after clinically indicated temporal bone energy-integrating detector CT. Photon-counting detector CT images were obtained at an average 31% lower dose compared with those obtained on the energy-integrating detector CT scanner. Reconstructed images were evaluated in axial, coronal, and Pöschl planes using the smallest available section thickness on each system (0.4 mm on energy-integrating detector CT; 0.2 mm on photon-counting detector CT). Two blinded neuroradiologists compared images side-by-side and scored them using a 5-point Likert scale. A post hoc reassignment of readers' scores was performed so that the scores reflected photon-counting detector CT performance relative to energy-integrating detector CT. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled, resulting in 26 image sets (left and right sides). The average patient age was 63.6 [SD, 13.4] years; 7 were women. Images from the photon-counting detector CT scanner were significantly preferred by the readers in all reconstructed planes (P < .001). Photon-counting detector CT was rated superior for the evaluation of all individual anatomic structures, with the oval window (4.79) and incudostapedial joint (4.75) receiving the highest scores on a Likert scale of 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal bone CT images obtained on a photon-counting detector CT scanner were rated as having superior spatial resolution and better critical structure visualization than those obtained on a conventional energy-integrating detector scanner, even with a substantial dose reduction.
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: Jiří Ferda; Tomáš Vendiš; Thomas Flohr; Bernhard Schmidt; André Henning; Stefan Ulzheimer; Ladislav Pecen; Eva Ferdová; Jan Baxa; Hynek Mírka Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Kishore Rajendran; Benjamin A Voss; Wei Zhou; Shengzhen Tao; David R DeLone; John I Lane; Jayse M Weaver; Matthew L Carlson; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: W Zhou; J I Lane; M L Carlson; M R Bruesewitz; R J Witte; K K Koeller; L J Eckel; R E Carter; C H McCollough; S Leng Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Andrea Esquivel; Andrea Ferrero; Achille Mileto; Francis Baffour; Kelly Horst; Prabhakar Shantha Rajiah; Akitoshi Inoue; Shuai Leng; Cynthia McCollough; Joel G Fletcher Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 7.109