Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative evaluation of image quality among different detector configurations using area detector computed tomography

  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The 320-detector row computed tomography (CT) system, i.e., the area detector CT (ADCT), can perform helical scanning with detector configurations of 4-, 16-, 32-, 64-, 80-, 100-, and 160-detector rows for routine CT examinations. This phantom study aimed to compare the quality of images obtained using helical scan mode with different detector configurations. The image quality was measured using modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise power spectrum (NPS). The system performance function (SP), based on the pre-whitening theorem, was calculated as MTF2/NPS, and compared between configurations. Five detector configurations, i.e., 0.5 × 16 mm (16 row), 0.5 × 64 mm (64 row), 0.5 × 80 mm (80 row), 0.5 × 100 mm (100 row), and 0.5 × 160 mm (160 row), were compared using a constant volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of 25 mGy, simulating the scan of an adult abdomen, and with a constant effective mAs value. The MTF was measured using the wire method, and the NPS was measured from images of a 20-cm diameter phantom with uniform content. The SP of 80-row configuration was the best, for the constant CTDIvol, followed by the 64-, 160-, 16-, and 100-row configurations. The decrease in the rate of the 100- and 160-row configurations from the 80-row configuration was approximately 30%. For the constant effective mAs, the SPs of the 100-row and 160-row configurations were significantly lower, compared with the other three detector configurations. The 80- and 64-row configurations were adequate in cases that required dose efficiency rather than scan speed.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fleischmann D, Hallett RL, Rubin GD. CT angiography of peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17:3–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahvenjärvi L, Niinimäki J, Halonen J, Tervonen O, Ojala R. Reliability of the evaluation of multidetector computed tomography images from the scanner’s console in high-energy blunt-trauma patients. Acta Radiol. 2007;48:64–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Halpern EJ. Triple-rule-out CT angiography for evaluation of acute chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome. Radiology. 2009;252:332–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brandman S, Ko JP. Pulmonary nodule detection, characterization, and management with multidetector computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging. 2011;26:90–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Catalano O, De Bellis M, Sandomenico F, de Lutio di Castelguidone E, Delrio P, Petrillo A. Complications of biliary and gastrointestinal stents: MDCT of the cancer patient. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:187–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fujimoto S, Matsutani H, Kondo T, Sano T, Kumamaru K, Takase S, Rybicki FJ. Image quality and radiation dose stratified by patient heart rate for coronary 64- and 320-MDCT angiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:765–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan A, Khosa F, Nasir K, Yassin A, Clouse ME. Comparison of radiation dose and image quality: 320-MDCT versus 64-MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:163–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Angel E. AIDR 3D iterative reconstruction, a white paper by Toshiba America Medical Systems. 2012(2). http://www.medical.toshiba.com.

  9. IAEA. IAEA safety standards series: radiological protection for medical exposure to ionizing radiation, No. RS-G-1.5. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2002.

  10. Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD, et al. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. AAPM report No. 204. http://www.aapm.org; 2011.

  11. IEC. Medical electrical equipment—Part 2-44: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC publication No. 60601-2-44. Ed 3.0. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2009.

  12. Hsieh J. Slice-sensitivity profile and noise. In: Computed tomography—principles, design, artifacts and recent advances. Bellingham, SPIE; 2003. pp. 150–3.

  13. Ichikawa K, Kobayashi T, Sagawa M, Katagiri A, Uno Y, Nishioka R, Matsuyama J. A phantom study investigating the relationship between ground–glass opacity visibility and physical detectability index in low-dose chest computed tomography. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:202–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bischof CJ, Ehrhardt JC. Modulation transfer function of the EMI CT head scanner. Med Phys. 1977;4:163–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Boone JM. Determination of the presampled MTF in computed tomography. Med Phys. 2001;28:356–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hanson KM. Detectability in computed tomographic images. Med Phys. 1979;6:441–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kijewski MF, Judy PF. The noise power spectrum of CT images. Phys Med Biol. 1987;32:565–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boedeker KL, Cooper VN, McNitt-Gray MF. Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: part I. Measurement of noise power spectra and noise equivalent quanta. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:4027–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Medical imaging—the assessment of image quality. ICRU report No. 54. Bethesda: ICRU Publications; 1996.

  20. Samei E, Richard S. Assessment of the dose reduction potential of a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm using a task-based performance metrology. Med Phys. 2015;42:314–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boedeker KL, McNitt-Gray MF. Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: part II. Noise power spectra and signal to noise. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:4047–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Trevisan D, Ravanelli D, Valentini A. Measurements of computed tomography dose index for clinical scans. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2014;158:389–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Takata T, Ichikawa K, Mitsui W, Hayashi H, Minehiro K, Sakuta K, Nunome H, Matsubara K, Kawashima H, Matsuura Y, Gabata T. Object shape dependency of in-plane resolution for iterative reconstruction of computed tomography. Phys Med. 2017;33:146–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goo HW. CT radiation dose optimization and estimation: an update for radiologists. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. IEC. Medical electrical equipment—Part 2-44: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC publication No. 60601-2-44. Ed 3.1. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2012.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Technology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan

    Yohei Miura & Masao Funahashi

  2. Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

    Yohei Miura, Ichiro Fujimura & Shinji Niwa

  3. Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-0942, Japan

    Katsuhiro Ichikawa

  4. Department of Radiological Technology, Rinku General Medical Center, Izumisano, Japan

    Ichiro Fujimura

  5. Department of Medical Technology, Nakatsugawa Municipal General Hospital, Nakatsugawa, Japan

    Takanori Hara & Shinji Niwa

  6. Department of Radiology, Ishinkai Yao General Hospital, Yao, Japan

    Takashi Hoshino

Authors
  1. Yohei Miura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katsuhiro Ichikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ichiro Fujimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takanori Hara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takashi Hoshino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shinji Niwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Masao Funahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katsuhiro Ichikawa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals or human participants performed.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miura, Y., Ichikawa, K., Fujimura, I. et al. Comparative evaluation of image quality among different detector configurations using area detector computed tomography. Radiol Phys Technol 11, 54–60 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0437-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0437-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation