OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ultra-high-resolution (UHR) imaging of large joints using an investigational photon-counting detector (PCD) CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing clinical shoulder or pelvis energy-integrating-detector (EID) CT exam were scanned using the UHR mode of the PCD-CT system. Axial EID-CT images (1-mm sections) and PCD-CT images (0.6-mm sections) were reconstructed using Br62/Br64 and Br76 kernels, respectively. Two musculoskeletal radiologists rated visualization of anatomic structures using a 5-point Likert scale. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical analysis of reader scores, and paired t-test was used for comparing bone CT numbers and image noise from PCD-CT and EID-CT. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (17 shoulders and 15 pelvis) were prospectively recruited for this feasibility study. Mean age for shoulder exams was 67.3 ± 15.5 years (11 females) and 47.2 ± 15.8 years (11 females) for pelvis exams. The mean volume CT dose index was lower on PCD-CT compared to that on EID-CT (shoulders: 18 mGy vs. 34 mGy, pelvis: 11.6 mGy vs. 16.7 mGy). PCD-CT was rated significantly better than EID-CT (p < 0.001) for anatomic-structure visualization. Trabecular delineation in shoulders (mean score = 4.24 ± 0.73) and femoroacetabular joint visualization in the pelvis (mean score = 3.67 ± 1.03) received the highest scores. PCD-CT demonstrated significant increase in bone CT number (p < 0.001) relative to EID-CT; no significant difference in image noise was found between PCD-CT and EID-CT. CONCLUSION: The evaluated PCD-CT system provided improved visualization of osseous structures in the shoulders and pelvises at a 31-47% lower radiation dose compared to EID-CT. KEY POINTS: • A full field-of-view PCD-CT with 0.151 mm × 0.176 mm detector pixel size (isocenter) facilitates bilateral, high-resolution imaging of shoulders and pelvis. • The evaluated investigational PCD-CT system was rated superior by two musculoskeletal radiologists for anatomic structure visualization in shoulders and pelvises despite a 31-47% lower radiation dose compared to EID-CT. • PCD-CT demonstrated significantly higher bone CT number compared to EID-CT, while no significant difference in image noise was observed between PCD-CT and EID-CT despite a 31-47% dose reduction on PCD-CT.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ultra-high-resolution (UHR) imaging of large joints using an investigational photon-counting detector (PCD) CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing clinical shoulder or pelvis energy-integrating-detector (EID) CT exam were scanned using the UHR mode of the PCD-CT system. Axial EID-CT images (1-mm sections) and PCD-CT images (0.6-mm sections) were reconstructed using Br62/Br64 and Br76 kernels, respectively. Two musculoskeletal radiologists rated visualization of anatomic structures using a 5-point Likert scale. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical analysis of reader scores, and paired t-test was used for comparing bone CT numbers and image noise from PCD-CT and EID-CT. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (17 shoulders and 15 pelvis) were prospectively recruited for this feasibility study. Mean age for shoulder exams was 67.3 ± 15.5 years (11 females) and 47.2 ± 15.8 years (11 females) for pelvis exams. The mean volume CT dose index was lower on PCD-CT compared to that on EID-CT (shoulders: 18 mGy vs. 34 mGy, pelvis: 11.6 mGy vs. 16.7 mGy). PCD-CT was rated significantly better than EID-CT (p < 0.001) for anatomic-structure visualization. Trabecular delineation in shoulders (mean score = 4.24 ± 0.73) and femoroacetabular joint visualization in the pelvis (mean score = 3.67 ± 1.03) received the highest scores. PCD-CT demonstrated significant increase in bone CT number (p < 0.001) relative to EID-CT; no significant difference in image noise was found between PCD-CT and EID-CT. CONCLUSION: The evaluated PCD-CT system provided improved visualization of osseous structures in the shoulders and pelvises at a 31-47% lower radiation dose compared to EID-CT. KEY POINTS: • A full field-of-view PCD-CT with 0.151 mm × 0.176 mm detector pixel size (isocenter) facilitates bilateral, high-resolution imaging of shoulders and pelvis. • The evaluated investigational PCD-CT system was rated superior by two musculoskeletal radiologists for anatomic structure visualization in shoulders and pelvises despite a 31-47% lower radiation dose compared to EID-CT. • PCD-CT demonstrated significantly higher bone CT number compared to EID-CT, while no significant difference in image noise was observed between PCD-CT and EID-CT despite a 31-47% dose reduction on PCD-CT.
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: S Leng; F E Diehn; J I Lane; K K Koeller; R J Witte; R E Carter; C H McCollough Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.825
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: 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: Kishore Rajendran; Martin Petersilka; André Henning; Elisabeth R Shanblatt; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas G Flohr; Andrea Ferrero; Francis Baffour; Felix E Diehn; Lifeng Yu; Prabhakar Rajiah; Joel G Fletcher; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ralf Gutjahr; Ahmed F Halaweish; Zhicong Yu; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Zhoubo Li; Steven M Jorgensen; Erik L Ritman; Steffen Kappler; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Stefanie J Bette; Franziska M Braun; Mark Haerting; Josua A Decker; Jan H Luitjens; Christian Scheurig-Muenkler; Thomas J Kroencke; Florian Schwarz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 7.034
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