Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interdependencies of acquisition, detection, and reconstruction techniques on the accuracy of iodine quantification in varying patient sizes employing dual-energy CT

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the impact of patient habitus, acquisition parameters, detector efficiencies, and reconstruction techniques on the accuracy of iodine quantification using dual-source dual-energy CT (DECT).

Materials and methods

Two phantoms simulating small and large patients contained 20 iodine solutions mimicking vascular and parenchymal enhancement from saline isodensity to 400 HU and 30 iodine solutions simulating enhancement of the urinary collecting system from 400 to 2,000 HU. DECT acquisition (80/140 kVp and 100/140 kVp) was performed using two DECT systems equipped with standard and integrated electronics detector technologies. DECT raw datasets were reconstructed using filtered backprojection (FBP), and iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE I/V).

Results

Accuracy for iodine quantification was significantly higher for the small compared to the large phantoms (9.2 % ± 7.5 vs. 24.3 % ± 26.1, P = 0.0001), the integrated compared to the conventional detectors (14.8 % ± 20.6 vs. 18.8 % ± 20.4, respectively; P = 0.006), and SAFIRE V compared to SAFIRE I and FBP reconstructions (15.2 % ± 18.1 vs. 16.1 % ± 17.6 and 18.9 % ± 20.4, respectively; P ≤ 0.003). A significant synergism was observed when the most effective detector and reconstruction techniques were combined with habitus-adapted dual-energy pairs.

Conclusion

In a second-generation dual-source DECT system, the accuracy of iodine quantification can be substantially improved by an optimal choice and combination of acquisition parameters, detector, and reconstruction techniques.

Key Points

• Iodine quantification techniques are not immune to error

• Systematic deviations between the measured and true iodine concentrations exist

• Acquisition parameters, detector efficiencies, and reconstruction techniques impact accuracy of iodine quantification

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

APE:

absolute percentage error

ANOVA:

analysis of variance

CTDIvol :

CT dose index volume

DECT:

dual-energy CT

FBP:

filtered backprojection

GLM:

general linear model

ROI:

region of interest

SAFIRE:

sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction

References

  1. Chiro GD, Brooks RA, Kessler RM et al (1979) Tissue signatures with dual-energy computed tomography. Radiology 131:521–523

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cann CE, Gamsu G, Birnberg FA, Webb WR (1982) Quantification of calcium in solitary pulmonary nodules using single- and dual-energy CT. Radiology 145:493–496

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Genant HK, Boyd D (1977) Quantitative bone mineral analysis using dual energy computed tomography. Invest Radiol 12:545–551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmidt-Bindert G, Henzler T, Chu TQ et al (2012) Functional imaging of lung cancer using dual energy CT: how does iodine related attenuation correlate with standardized uptake value of 18FDG-PET-CT? Eur Radiol 22:93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Apfaltrer P, Meyer M, Meier C et al (2012) Contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Is iodine-related attenuation a potential indicator of tumor response? Invest Radiol 47:65–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ascenti G, Mileto A, Krauss B et al (2013) Distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses with dual-source dual-energy CT: iodine quantification versus standard enhancement measurements. Eur Radiol 23:2288–2295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chandarana H, Megibow AJ, Cohen BA et al (2011) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: phantom study and preliminary experience with renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W693–W700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Koonce JD, Vliegenthart R, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography for the measurement of iodine concentration using cardiac CT protocols: validation in a phantom model. Eur Radiol 24:512–518

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Feuerlein S, Heye TJ, Bashir MR, Boll DT (2012) Iodine quantification using dual-energy multidetector computed tomography imaging: phantom study assessing the impact of iterative reconstruction schemes and patient habitus on accuracy. Invest Radiol 47:656–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gatenby RA, Grove O, Gillies RJ (2013) Quantitative imaging in cancer evolution and ecology. Radiology 269:8–15

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Duan X, Wang J, Leng S, Schmidt B, Allmendinger T, Grant K, Flohr T, McCollough CH (2013) Electronic noise in CT detectors: Impact on image noise and artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W626–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Primak AN, Giraldo JC, Eusemann CD et al (2010) Dual-source dual-energy CT with additional tin filtration: dose and image quality evaluation in phantoms and in vivo. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1164–1174

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pontana F, Pagniez J, Duhamel A et al (2013) Reduced-dose low-voltage chest CT angiography with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction versus standard-dose filtered back projection. Radiology 267:609–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Li Y, Shi G, Wang S, Wang S, Wu R (2013) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: phantom study and preliminary experience with VX2 residual tumour in rabbits after radiofrequency ablation. Br J Radiol 86:20130143

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morsbach F, Bickelhaupt S, Rätzer S, Schmidt B, Alkadhi H (2014) Integrated circuit detector technology in abdominal CT: added value in obese patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:368–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Primak AN, Ramirez Giraldo JC, Liu X, Yu L, McCollough CH (2009) Improved dual-energy material discrimination for dual-source CT by means of additional spectral filtration. Med Phys 36:1359–1369

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Armato SG, Goldmacher GV, Schwartz LH (2014) Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA). http://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=Main_Page. Accessed 27 Feb 2014

  18. Yu L, Leng S, McCollough CH (2012) Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:S9–S15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Professor Daniel T. Boll. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors (Daniel T. Boll) has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was not required because it is a phantom study. Methodology: prospective, experimental, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Daniele Marin, Jose J. Pratts-Emanuelli, Achille Mileto, Mustafa R. Bashir, Rendon C. Nelson & Daniel T. Boll

  2. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Daniela B. Husarik

Authors
  1. Daniele Marin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose J. Pratts-Emanuelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Achille Mileto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniela B. Husarik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mustafa R. Bashir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rendon C. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Daniel T. Boll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel T. Boll.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marin, D., Pratts-Emanuelli, J.J., Mileto, A. et al. Interdependencies of acquisition, detection, and reconstruction techniques on the accuracy of iodine quantification in varying patient sizes employing dual-energy CT. Eur Radiol 25, 679–686 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3447-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3447-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation