Metal artifacts and artifact reduction of neurovascular coils in photon-counting detector CT versus energy-integrating detector CT - in vitro comparison of a standard brain imaging protocol

被引:13
|
作者
Schmitt, Niclas [1 ]
Wucherpfennig, Lena [2 ]
Rotkopf, Lukas T. [3 ]
Sawall, Stefan [4 ]
Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich [2 ]
Bendszus, Martin [1 ]
Moehlenbruch, Markus A. [1 ]
Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter [3 ]
Vollherbst, Dominik F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Heidelberg Univ Hosp, Dept Neuroradiol, Neuenheimer Feld 400, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[2] Heidelberg Univ Hosp, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Neuenheimer Feld 420, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[3] German Canc Res Ctr, Div Radiol, Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[4] German Canc Res Ctr, Div Xray Imaging & Computed Tomog, Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
关键词
Metal artifact reduction; Coils; Photon-counting CT; Aneurysm; Brain imaging; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-022-09073-y
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
Objectives Photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) is a promising new technique for CT imaging. The aim of the present study was the in vitro comparison of coil-related artifacts in PCD-CT and conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) using a comparable standard brain imaging protocol before and after metal artifact reduction (MAR). Methods A nidus-shaped rubber latex, resembling an aneurysm of the cerebral arteries, was filled with neurovascular platinum coils and inserted into a brain imaging phantom. Image acquisition and reconstruction were repeatedly performed for PCD-CT and EID-CT (n = 10, respectively) using a standard brain imaging protocol. Moreover, linear interpolation MAR was performed for PCD-CT and EID-CT images. The degree of artifacts was analyzed quantitatively (standard deviation in a donut-shaped region of interest) and qualitatively (5-point scale analysis). Results Quantitative and qualitative analysis demonstrated a lower degree of metal artifacts in the EID-CT images compared to the total-energy PCD-CT images (e.g., 82.99 +/- 7.89 Hounsfield units (HU) versus 90.35 +/- 6.28 HU; p < 0.001) with no qualitative difference between the high-energy bin PCD-CT images and the EID-CT images (4.18 +/- 0.37 and 3.70 +/- 0.64; p = 0.575). After MAR, artifacts were more profoundly reduced in the PCD-CT images compared to the EID-CT images in both analyses (e.g., 2.35 +/- 0.43 and 3.18 +/- 0.34; p < 0.001). Conclusion PCD-CT in combination with MAR have the potential to provide an improved option for reduction of coil-related artifacts in cerebral imaging in this in vitro study.
引用
收藏
页码:803 / 811
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Metal artifacts and artifact reduction of neurovascular coils in photon-counting detector CT versus energy-integrating detector CT — in vitro comparison of a standard brain imaging protocol
    Niclas Schmitt
    Lena Wucherpfennig
    Lukas T. Rotkopf
    Stefan Sawall
    Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
    Martin Bendszus
    Markus A. Möhlenbruch
    Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
    Dominik F. Vollherbst
    European Radiology, 2023, 33 : 803 - 811
  • [2] Assessment of metal artifacts from titanium wrist prostheses: photon-counting versus energy-integrating detector CT
    Nina Kämmerling
    Simon Farnebo
    Mårten Sandstedt
    Ronald Booij
    Anders Persson
    Erik Tesselaar
    European Radiology Experimental, 9 (1)
  • [3] Optimizing Chest CT With Photon-counting Detector Technology: Comparison to Established Energy-integrating Detector CT Protocols
    Alarab, N.
    Guo, J.
    Atha, J.
    Sieren, J. C.
    Puliyakote, A. S. Kizhakke
    Hoffman, E. A.
    Abadi, E.
    Fain, S. B.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2024, 209
  • [4] Giant Thrombus in a Coronary Artery Bypass Graft: Comparison of Photon-counting Detector CT and Energy-integrating Detector CT
    Zhang, Huixin
    Jin, Dongsheng
    RADIOLOGY, 2024, 313 (03)
  • [5] Low-dose CT of the abdomen: Initial experience on a novel photon-counting detector CT and comparison with energy-integrating detector CT
    Decker, Josua A.
    Bette, Stefanie
    Lubina, Nora
    Rippel, Katharina
    Braun, Franziska
    Risch, Franka
    Wollny, Claudia
    Scheurig-Muenkler, Christian
    Kroencke, Thomas J.
    Schwarz, Florian
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 148
  • [6] Infrapopliteal Segments on Lower Extremity CTA: Prospective Intraindividual Comparison of Energy-Integrating Detector CT and Photon-Counting Detector CT
    Yalon, Mariana
    Inoue, Akitoshi
    Thorne, Jamison E.
    Lee, Yong S.
    Johnson, Matthew P.
    Esquivel, Andrea
    Leng, Shuai
    McCollough, Cynthia H.
    Fletcher, Joel G.
    Rajiah, Prabhakar Shantha
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2024, 222 (03)
  • [7] Comparison of Photon-counting Detector and Energy-integrating Detector CT for Visual Estimation of Coronary Percent Luminal Stenosis
    Mccollough, Cynthia H.
    Rajiah, Prabhakar
    Bois, John P.
    Winfree, Tim N.
    Carter, Rickey E.
    Rajendran, Kishore
    Williamson, Eric E.
    Thorne, Jamison E.
    Leng, Shuai
    RADIOLOGY, 2023, 309 (03)
  • [8] Comparison Study of Myocardial Radiomics Feature Properties on Energy-Integrating and Photon-Counting Detector CT
    Ayx, Isabelle
    Tharmaseelan, Hishan
    Hertel, Alexander
    Noerenberg, Dominik
    Overhoff, Daniel
    Rotkopf, Lukas T.
    Riffel, Philipp
    Schoenberg, Stefan O.
    Froelich, Matthias F.
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2022, 12 (05)
  • [9] Comparison of Image Quality and Radiation Dose in Pediatric Temporal Bone CT Using Photon-Counting Detector CT and Energy-Integrating Detector CT
    Lee, Jeong Sub
    Kim, John
    Bapuraj, Jayapalli R.
    Srinivasan, Ashok
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY, 2024, 45 (09) : 1322 - 1326
  • [10] Contrast-Enhanced Abdominal CT with Clinical Photon-Counting Detector CT: Assessment of Image Quality and Comparison with Energy-Integrating Detector CT
    Higashigaito, Kai
    Euler, Andre
    Eberhard, Matthias
    Flohr, Thomas G.
    Schmidt, Bernhard
    Alkadhi, Hatem
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2022, 29 (05) : 689 - 697