No abstract

No abstract

This study assesses the accuracy of effective atomic number (Z eff ) and electron density measurements acquired from dual energy CT and characterizes the response to clinically relevant variables representative of challenges in patient imaging, including: phantom size, material position within the phantom, variation over time, off-center positioning, and large cone beam angle. Methods: The Gammex Multi-Energy CT head and body phantoms were used to measure Z eff and electron density from 35 rod inserts that mimic tissues and varying concentrations of iodine and calcium. Scans were performed on a Canon Aquilion ONE Genesis CT scanner over a period of 6 months using default dual energy protocols appropriate for each phantom size. Theoretical Z eff and electron density values were calculated using data provided by the phantom manufacturer and compared to the measurements. Sources of variance were separated and quantified to identify the influences of random photon statistics, ROI placement, and variation over time. A subset of measurements were repeated with the phantom shifted in the vertical and horizontal directions, and over all slices in the volumetric scan. Results: All measurements showed strong correlation (r > 0.98) with their corresponding theoretical values; however, the system did demonstrate a bias of −0.58 atomic units in the body phantom and 0.28 atomic units in the head phantom for Z eff measurements. The mean absolute percent error (MAPE) was 6.3% for the body phantom and 3.2% for the head phantom. Electron density measurements of the body and head phantoms gave MAPE values of 4.6% and 1.0%, respectively. Z eff and electron density measurements significantly varied within the solid water background, showing a positional dependence within the phantom that dominated the total standard deviation in measurements. Z eff values dropped by 0.2 atomic units when the phantom was off-center; electron density measurements were less affected by phantom position. Along the z-axis, the accuracy drops off markedly at more than 50-60 mm from the central slice. Conclusion:The Canon dual energy system offers an accurate way of measuring the Z eff and electron density of clinically relevant materials. Accuracy could be improved further by calibration to remove bias, careful attention to centering within the FOV, and avoiding measurements at the edges of the cone beam.

Modern CT iterative reconstruction algorithms are transitioning from a statistical-based to model-based approach. However, increasing complexity does not ensure improved image quality for all indications, and thorough characterization of new algorithms is important to understand their potential clinical impacts. This study performs both quantitative and qualitative analyses of image quality to compare Canon’s statistical-based Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) algorithm to its model-based algorithm, Forward-projected model-based Iterative Reconstruction SoluTion(FIRST). A phantom was used to measure the task-specific modulation transfer function (MTFTask), the noise power spectrum (NPS), and the low-contrast object-specific CNR (CNRLO) for each algorithm using three dose levels and the convolution algorithm (kernel) appropriate for abdomen, lung, and brain imaging. Additionally, MTFTask was measured at four contrast levels, and CNRLO was measured for two object sizes. Lastly, three radiologists participated in a preference study to compare clinical image quality for three study types: non-contrast abdomen, pulmonary embolism (PE), and lung screening. Nine questions related to the appearance of anatomical features or image quality characteristics were scored for twenty exams of each type. The behavior of both algorithms depended strongly on the kernel selected. Phantom measurements suggest that FIRST should be beneficial over AIDR 3D for abdomen imaging, but do not suggest a clear overall benefit to FIRST for lung or brain imaging; metrics suggest performance may be equivalent to or slightly favor AIDR 3D, depending on the size of the object being imaged and whether spatial resolution or low-contrast resolution is more important for the task at hand. Overall, radiologists strongly preferred AIDR 3D for lung screening, slightly preferred AIDR 3D for non-contrast abdomen, and had no preference for PE. FIRST was superior for the reduction of metal artifacts. Radiologist preference may be influenced by changes to noise texture.