Yoshiharu Ohno1,2, Naruomi Akino3, Yasuko Fujisawa3, Hirona Kimata4, Yuya Ito4, Kenji Fujii4, Yumi Kataoka5, Yoshihiro Ida5, Yuka Oshima6, Nayu Hamabuchi6, Chika Shigemura6, Ayumi Watanabe6, Yuki Obama6, Satomu Hanamatsu6, Takahiro Ueda6, Hirotaka Ikeda6, Kazuhiro Murayama4, Hiroshi Toyama6. 1. Department of Radiology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan. yohno@fujita-hu.ac.jp. 2. Joint Research Laboratory of Advanced Medical Imaging, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan. yohno@fujita-hu.ac.jp. 3. Canon Medical Systems Corporation, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan. 4. Joint Research Laboratory of Advanced Medical Imaging, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan. 5. Department of Radiology, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan. 6. Department of Radiology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ultra-high-resolution CT (UHR-CT), which can be applied normal resolution (NR), high-resolution (HR), and super-high-resolution (SHR) modes, has become available as in conjunction with multi-detector CT (MDCT). Moreover, deep learning reconstruction (DLR) method, as well as filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid-type iterative reconstruction (IR), and model-based IR methods, has been clinically used. The purpose of this study was to directly compare lung CT number and airway dimension evaluation capabilities of UHR-CT using different scan modes with those of MDCT with different reconstruction methods as investigated in a lung density and airway phantom design recommended by QIBA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lung CT number, inner diameter (ID), inner area (IA), and wall thickness (WT) were measured, and mean differences between measured CT number, ID, IA, WT, and standard reference were compared by means of Tukey's HSD test between all UHR-CT data and MDCT reconstructed with FBP as 1.0-mm section thickness. RESULTS: For each reconstruction method, mean differences in lung CT numbers and all airway parameters on 0.5-mm and 1-mm section thickness CTs obtained with SHR and HR modes showed significant differences with those obtained with the NR mode on UHR-CT and MDCT (p < 0.05). Moreover, the mean differences on all UHR-CTs obtained with SHR, HR, or NR modes were significantly different from those of 1.0-mm section thickness MDCTs reconstructed with FBP (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Scan modes and reconstruction methods used for UHR-CT were found to significantly affect lung CT number and airway dimension evaluations as did reconstruction methods used for MDCT. KEY POINTS: • Scan and reconstruction methods used for UHR-CT showed significantly higher CT numbers and smaller airway dimension evaluations as did those for MDCT in a QIBA phantom study (p < 0.05). • Mean differences in lung CT number for 0.25-mm, 0.5-mm, and 1.0-mm section thickness CT images obtained with SHR and HR modes were significantly larger than those for CT images at 1.0-mm section thickness obtained with MDCT and reconstructed with FBP (p < 0.05). • Mean differences in inner diameter (ID), inner area (IA), and wall thickness (WT) measured with SHR and HR modes on 0.5- and 1.0-mm section thickness CT images were significantly smaller than those obtained with NR mode on UHR-CT and MDCT (p < 0.05).
OBJECTIVE: Ultra-high-resolution CT (UHR-CT), which can be applied normal resolution (NR), high-resolution (HR), and super-high-resolution (SHR) modes, has become available as in conjunction with multi-detector CT (MDCT). Moreover, deep learning reconstruction (DLR) method, as well as filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid-type iterative reconstruction (IR), and model-based IR methods, has been clinically used. The purpose of this study was to directly compare lung CT number and airway dimension evaluation capabilities of UHR-CT using different scan modes with those of MDCT with different reconstruction methods as investigated in a lung density and airway phantom design recommended by QIBA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lung CT number, inner diameter (ID), inner area (IA), and wall thickness (WT) were measured, and mean differences between measured CT number, ID, IA, WT, and standard reference were compared by means of Tukey's HSD test between all UHR-CT data and MDCT reconstructed with FBP as 1.0-mm section thickness. RESULTS: For each reconstruction method, mean differences in lung CT numbers and all airway parameters on 0.5-mm and 1-mm section thickness CTs obtained with SHR and HR modes showed significant differences with those obtained with the NR mode on UHR-CT and MDCT (p < 0.05). Moreover, the mean differences on all UHR-CTs obtained with SHR, HR, or NR modes were significantly different from those of 1.0-mm section thickness MDCTs reconstructed with FBP (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Scan modes and reconstruction methods used for UHR-CT were found to significantly affect lung CT number and airway dimension evaluations as did reconstruction methods used for MDCT. KEY POINTS: • Scan and reconstruction methods used for UHR-CT showed significantly higher CT numbers and smaller airway dimension evaluations as did those for MDCT in a QIBA phantom study (p < 0.05). • Mean differences in lung CT number for 0.25-mm, 0.5-mm, and 1.0-mm section thickness CT images obtained with SHR and HR modes were significantly larger than those for CT images at 1.0-mm section thickness obtained with MDCT and reconstructed with FBP (p < 0.05). • Mean differences in inner diameter (ID), inner area (IA), and wall thickness (WT) measured with SHR and HR modes on 0.5- and 1.0-mm section thickness CT images were significantly smaller than those obtained with NR mode on UHR-CT and MDCT (p < 0.05).
Authors: K Murayama; S Suzuki; H Nagata; J Oda; I Nakahara; K Katada; K Fujii; H Toyama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.825