Advertisement

Radiation Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 237–243 | Cite as

Validation of the use of calibration factors between the iodine concentration and the computed tomography number measured outside the objects for estimation of iodine concentration inside the objects: phantom experiment

  • Kentaro Takanami
  • Shuichi Higano
  • Kei Takase
  • Tomohiro Kaneta
  • Takayuki Yamada
  • Hiroki Ishiya
  • Issei Mori
  • Shoki Takahashi
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to validate the use of a calibration factor measured outside the object for estimating the iodine concentration inside the object to improve the accuracy of the quantitative contrastenhanced computed tomography (CT).

Materials and methods

Several known concentrations (0, 6, 9, and 12 mg I/ml) of iodine contrast material (CM) samples were placed inside and outside cylindrical acrylic phantoms of two sizes and were imaged under various combinations of the tube voltages and currents (kV/mAs–80/200, 100/200, 120/200, 140/200) to obtain K factors. The K factors were compared between the phantoms and among the tube voltages. Each CM concentration was estimated from the CT number using the K factor measured outside the phantom.

Results

The K factors varied between the phantoms or among the tube voltages (P < 0.05). Although there were statistically significant variations in K factors among the different regions in a phantom, the mean variation coefficient was 3%–4%. The mean error of the estimated concentration was −5.5%.

Conclusion

The CM concentration should be accurately estimated at the region within a patient’s body using the K factor measured at the surface of the body regardless of body size and tube voltage.

Key words

Computed tomography Contrast material Phantom 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pastorino U, Bellomi M, Landoni C, De Fiori E, Arnaldi P, Picchio M, et al. Early lung-cancer detection with spiral CT and positron emission tomography in heavy smokers: 2-year results. Lancet 2003;362:593–597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Szolar DH, Kammerhuber F. Quantitative CT evaluation of adrenal gland masses: a step forward in the differentiation between adenomas and nonadenomas? Radiology 1997;202:517–521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boland GW, Hahn PF, Pena C, Mueller PR. Adrenal masses: characterization with delayed contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 1997;202:693–696.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swensen SJ, Brown LR, Colby TV, Weaver AL, Midthun DE. Lung nodule enhancement at CT: prospective findings. Radiology 1996;201:447–455.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tateishi U, Nishihara H, Watanabe S, Morikawa T, Abe K, Miyasaka K. Tumor angiogenesis and dynamic CT in lung adenocarcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:23–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miles KA. Measurement of tissue perfusion by dynamic computed tomography. Br J Radiol 1991;64:409–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miles KA, Griffiths MR. Perfusion CT: a worthwhile enhancement? Br J Radiol 2003;76:220–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, Hatemura M, Imuta M, Nakaura T, et al. Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 2005;237:945–951.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miles KA, Young H, Chica SL, Esser PD. Quantitative contrast-enhanced computed tomography: is there a need for system calibration? Eur Radiol 2007;17:919–926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 2004;233:515–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garrett JS, Lanzer P, Jaschke W. Measurement of cardiac output by cine computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 1985;10:657–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ludman PF, Darby M, Tomlinson N, Poole-Wilson PA, Rees S. Cardiac flow measurement by ultrafast CT: validation of continuous and pulsatile flow. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992;16:795–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Welch BL. The generalization of “Student’s” problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 1947;34:28–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neuhäuser M. Two-sample tests when variances are unequal. Anim Behav 2002;63:823–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zerhouni EA, Spivey JF, Morgan RH, Leo FP, Stitik FP, Siegelman SS. Factors influencing quantitative CT measurements of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1982;6:1075–1087.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Birnbaum BA, Hindman N, Lee J, Babb JS. Multi-detector row CT attenuation measurements: assessment of intra-and interscanner variability with an anthropomorphic body CT phantom. Radiology 2007;242:109–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kentaro Takanami
    • 1
  • Shuichi Higano
    • 1
  • Kei Takase
    • 1
  • Tomohiro Kaneta
    • 1
  • Takayuki Yamada
    • 1
  • Hiroki Ishiya
    • 2
  • Issei Mori
    • 3
  • Shoki Takahashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyTohoku University School of MedicineSendaiJapan
  2. 2.Division of RadiologyTohoku University HospitalSendaiJapan
  3. 3.School of Health Sciences, Faculty of MedicineTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations