Accuracy of iodine quantification in dual energy CT: A phantom study across 3 different CT systems

被引:1
|
作者
Dehlinger, N. [1 ]
Bach, J. [1 ]
Willaume, T. [1 ]
Ohana, M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Dillenseger, J. P. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Hop Univ Strasbourg, Pole Imagerie Med, Strasbourg, France
[2] Univ Strasbourg, CNRS, ICube UMR 7357, Strasbourg, France
[3] Univ Strasbourg, Fac Medecine Maieut & Sci Sante, Strasbourg, France
[4] Fac Medecine Maieut & Sci Sante, 4Rue Kirschleger, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
关键词
Computed tomography; Phantoms; Dual-energy computed tomography; SQUAMOUS-CELL CARCINOMA; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; PARAMETERS; HEAD;
D O I
10.1016/j.radi.2023.11.015
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Introduction: No study has rigorously compared the performances of iodine quantification on recent CT systems employing different emission-based technologies, depending on the manufacturers and models.Methods: A specific bespoke phantom was used for this study, with 12 known concentrations of iodinated contrast agent: 0.4, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0, 30.0 and 50.0 mg/mL. Three different dual-energy scanners were tested: one system using dual-source acquisition (CT#1) and two systems using Fast kilovolt-peak switching technology +/- artificial intelligence (AI) reconstruction methods (CT#2 and #3) from two different manufacturers. For each system, helical scans were performed following recommended clinical protocols. Four acquisitions were performed per iodine concentration (mg/mL), and measurements were made on iodine-maps using ROIs. Mean measured values were compared to the known concentrations, and the absolute quantification error (AQE) and the relative percentage error (RPE) were used to compare the performances of each CT.Results: The accuracy of the obtained measurements varied depending on the studied model but not on the acquisition mode (dual-source vs kVp switch +/- AI). The quantification was more precise at high concentrations. RPE values were below 10 % with CT#2 (kVp switch) and below 25 % with CT#1 (dualsource), but were significantly higher with CT#3 (kVp switch thorn AI), exceeding 50 % at low concentrations (<3 mg/mL).Conclusions: With the help of a phantom, we identified variability in the results accuracy depending on the CT model, with sometimes significant deviation. Considering the performances of the different DECT technologies in iodine mapping, dual-source (CT#1) and kVp switch (CT#2) technologies appear more accurate than kVp switch technology combined with deep-learning-based reconstruction (CT#3) especially at low concentrations (<3 mg/mL). Implications for practice: As the primary and daily user of medical imaging devices, the radiographer role is to be attentive to the performance of imaging systems, particularly when performing quantitative acquisitions like iodine-quantification. In CT quantitative imaging (iodine map), it's essential for radiographers to consider their CT systems as measuring tools, and to be aware of their accuracies and limits.(c) 2023 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:226 / 230
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Dual-Energy CT: Lower Limits of Iodine Detection and Quantification
    Jacobsen, Megan C.
    Cressman, Erik N. K.
    Tamm, Eric P.
    Baluya, Dodge L.
    Duan, Xinhui
    Cody, Dianna D.
    Schellingerhout, Dawid
    Layman, Rick R.
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 292 (02) : 414 - 419
  • [22] Gout Phantom for Dual Energy CT
    Dimoff, M.
    Nett, E.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 47 (06) : E537 - E537
  • [23] Dual-Energy CT for Quantification of Urinary Stone Composition in Mixed Stones: A Phantom Study
    Leng, Shuai
    Huang, Alice
    Cardona, Juan Montoya
    Duan, Xinhui
    Williams, James C.
    McCollough, Cynthia H.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2016, 207 (02) : 321 - 329
  • [24] Dual-source photon counting detector CT with a tin filter: a phantom study on iodine quantification performance
    Tao, Ashley
    Huang, Richard
    Tao, Shengzhen
    Michalak, Gregory J.
    McCollough, Cynthia H.
    Leng, Shuai
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2019, 64 (11):
  • [25] A Novel Dual Energy CT-Based Attenuation Correction Method in PET/CT Systems: A Phantom Study
    Teimourian, Behnoosh
    Ay, Mohammad Reza
    Zafarghandi, Mojtaba Shamsaei
    Ghadiri, Hossein
    IRANIAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2009, 17 (02): : 42 - 49
  • [26] A Method for Reducing Variability Across Dual-Energy CT Manufacturers in Quantification of Low Iodine Content Levels
    Cai, Larry M.
    Hippe, Daniel S.
    Zamora, David A.
    Cao, Jinjin
    Parakh, Anushri
    Kambadakone, Avinash R.
    Xiao, Jennifer M.
    Wang, Sherry S.
    Toia, Giuseppe, V
    Gunn, Martin L.
    Wang, Carolyn L.
    Mileto, Achille
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 218 (04) : 746 - 755
  • [27] A novel fast kilovoltage switching dual-energy CT with deep learning: Accuracy of CT number on virtual monochromatic imaging and iodine quantification
    Kojima, Tsukasa
    Shirasaka, Takashi
    Kondo, Masatoshi
    Kato, Toyoyuki
    Nishie, Akihiro
    Ishigami, Kousei
    Yabuuchi, Hidetake
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 81 : 253 - 261
  • [28] The accuracy of bone mineral density measurement using dual-energy spectral CT and quantitative CT: a comparative phantom study
    Li, X.
    Li, J.
    Jiao, X.
    Jia, X.
    Zhang, X.
    Fan, G.
    Yang, J.
    Guo, J.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 75 (04) : 320.e9 - 320.e15
  • [29] Accuracy of bone mineral density quantification using dual-layer spectral detector CT: a phantom study
    van Hamersvelt, Robbert W.
    Schilham, Arnold M. R.
    Engelke, Klaus
    den Harder, Annemarie M.
    de Keizer, Bart
    Verhaar, Harald J.
    Leiner, Tim
    de Jong, Pim A.
    Willemink, Martin J.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2017, 27 (10) : 4351 - 4359
  • [30] Accuracy of bone mineral density quantification using dual-layer spectral detector CT: a phantom study
    Robbert W. van Hamersvelt
    Arnold M. R. Schilham
    Klaus Engelke
    Annemarie M. den Harder
    Bart de Keizer
    Harald J. Verhaar
    Tim Leiner
    Pim A. de Jong
    Martin J. Willemink
    European Radiology, 2017, 27 : 4351 - 4359