Dual-energy CT: a phantom comparison of different platforms for abdominal imaging
- 155 Downloads
Evaluation of imaging performance across dual-energy CT (DECT) platforms, including dual-layer CT (DLCT), rapid-kVp-switching CT (KVSCT) and dual-source CT (DSCT).
A semi-anthropomorphic abdomen phantom was imaged on these DECT systems. Scans were repeated three times for CTDIvol levels of 10 mGy, 20 mGy, 30 mGy and different fat-simulating extension rings. Over the available range of virtual-monoenergetic images (VMI), noise as well as quantitative accuracy of hounsfield units (HU) and iodine concentrations were evaluated.
For all VMI levels, HU values could be determined with high accuracy compared to theoretical values. For KVSCT and DSCT, a noise increase was observed towards lower VMI levels. A patient-size dependent increase in the uncertainty of quantitative iodine concentrations is observed for all platforms. For a medium patient size the iodine concentration root-mean-square deviation at 20 mGy is 0.17 mg/ml (DLCT), 0.30 mg/ml (KVSCT) and 0.77mg/ml (DSCT).
Noticeable performance differences are observed between investigated DECT systems. Iodine concentrations and VMI HUs are accurately determined across all DECT systems. KVSCT and DLCT deliver slightly more accurate iodine concentration values than DSCT for investigated scenarios. In DLCT, low-noise and high-image contrast at low VMI levels may help to increase diagnostic information in abdominal CT.
• Current dual-energy CT platforms provide accurate, reliable quantitative information.
• Dual-energy CT cross-platform evaluation revealed noticeable performance differences between different systems.
• Dual-layer CT offers constant noise levels over the complete energy range.
KeywordsComputed tomography, X-ray Quantitative evaluation Radiologic phantom Comparative study Iodine
Dual-energy Computed Tomography
Rapid kVp Switching CT
Region of Interest
Virtual Monoenergetic Image
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dushyant V. Sahani MD.
Conflict of interest
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.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because no human subjects were included in the study.
Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because no animal subjects were included in the study.
• multicentre study
- 1.Conway JRW, Carragher NO, Timpson P (2014) Developments in preclinical cancer imaging : innovating the discovery of therapeutics. Nat Publ Gr 14:314–328Google Scholar
- 2.Kirchhof P, Sipido KR, Cowie MR et al (2014) The continuum of personalized cardiovascular medicine: a position paper of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J:3250–3257Google Scholar
- 10.Muenzel D, Kabus S, Gramer B et al (2013) Dynamic CT Perfusion Imaging of the Myocardium: A Technical Note on Improvement of Image Quality. PLoS One8Google Scholar
- 14.Patino M, Prochowski A, Agrawal MD et al (2016) Material Separation Using Dual-Energy CT: Current and Emerging Applications. RadioGraphics Radiol Soc N Am 36:1087–1105Google Scholar
- 19.Vlassenbroek A. Dual Layer CT (2011) In: Johnson T, Fink C, Schönberg SO, Reiser MF, editors. Dual Energy CT in Clinical Practice. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 21–34Google Scholar
- 20.Hickethier DM, Byrtus T, Wybranski J et al (2017) Image quality evaluation of dual-layer spectral detector CT of the chest and comparison with conventional CT imaging. Eur J Radiol 52Google Scholar
- 21.Altman A, Carmi R (2009) TU-E-210A-03: A Double-Layer Detector, Dual-Energy CT — Principles, Advantages and Applications. Med Phys Am Assoc Phys Med 36:2750Google Scholar
- 26.Almeida IP, Schyns LEJR, Ollers MC (2017) Dual-energy CT quantitative imaging: a comparison study between twin-beam and dual-source CT scanners 171–9Google Scholar
- 27.Pelgrim GJ, van Hamersvelt RW, Willemink MJ et al. (2017) Accuracy of iodine quantification using dual energy CT in latest generation dual source and dual layer CT. Eur RadiolGoogle Scholar
- 28.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 Springer Berlin Heidelberg 24:512–518Google Scholar
- 29.ACR. ACR – AAPM Practice Parameter for Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses in Medical X-Ray Imaging [Internet]. Resolution 39. 2013 [cited 2017 Nov 10]. p. 1–9. Available from: http://www.acr.org/~/media/796DE35AA407447DB81CEB5612B4553D.pdf
- 32.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 86Google Scholar
- 33.Euler A, Parakh A, Falkowski AL et al (2016) Initial Results of a Single-Source Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Technique Using a Split-Filter. Invest Radiol 1Google Scholar