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
  • [41] Quantitative accuracy and dose efficiency of dual-contrast imaging using dual-energy CT: a phantom study
    Ren, Liqiang
    Rajendran, Kishore
    McCollough, Cynthia H.
    Yu, Lifeng
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 47 (02) : 441 - 456
  • [43] Contrast Thresholds for Detection of Various Iodine Concentrations in Subtraction CT and Dual Energy CT Systems
    Heshmat, A.
    Barreto, I.
    Rill, L.
    Arreola, M.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (06) : E622 - E622
  • [44] Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: phantom study and preliminary experience with VX2 residual tumour in rabbits after radiofrequency ablation
    Li, Y.
    Shi, G.
    Wang, S.
    Wang, S.
    Wu, R.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2013, 86 (1029):
  • [45] Accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography for the quantification of iodine in a soft tissue-mimicking phantom
    Li, Jung-Hui
    Du, Yeh-Ming
    Huang, Hsuan-Ming
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (05): : 418 - 426
  • [46] Dual-energy CT: a phantom comparison of different platforms for abdominal imaging
    Thorsten Sellerer
    Peter B. Noël
    Manuel Patino
    Anushri Parakh
    Sebastian Ehn
    Sascha Zeiter
    Jasmin A. Holz
    Johannes Hammel
    Alexander A. Fingerle
    Franz Pfeiffer
    David Maintz
    Ernst J. Rummeny
    Daniela Muenzel
    Dushyant V. Sahani
    European Radiology, 2018, 28 : 2745 - 2755
  • [47] Dual-energy CT: a phantom comparison of different platforms for abdominal imaging
    Sellerer, Thorsten
    Noel, Peter B.
    Patino, Manuel
    Parakh, Anushri
    Ehn, Sebastian
    Zeiter, Sascha
    Holz, Jasmin A.
    Hammel, Johannes
    Fingerle, Alexander A.
    Pfeiffer, Franz
    Maintz, David
    Rummeny, Ernst J.
    Muenzel, Daniela
    Sahani, Dushyant V.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (07) : 2745 - 2755
  • [48] Intrinsic limitations on quantification accuracy of dual energy CT at low dose levels
    Cruz-Bastida, Juan P.
    Zhang, Ran
    Li, Ke
    Chen, Guang-Hong
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2018: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2018, 10573
  • [49] Performance of today's dual energy CT and future multi energy CT in virtual non-contrast imaging and in iodine quantification: A simulation study
    Faby, Sebastian
    Kuchenbecker, Stefan
    Sawall, Stefan
    Simons, David
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Lell, Michael
    Kachelriess, Marc
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (07) : 4349 - 4366
  • [50] Reply to Letter to the Editor: "Intra-patient variability of iodine quantification across different dual-energy CT platforms: assessment of normalization techniques"
    Lennartz, Simon
    Kambadakone, Avinash
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, 34 (12) : 7591 - 7592