Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 54–60 | Cite as

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

  • Yohei Miura
  • Katsuhiro Ichikawa
  • Ichiro Fujimura
  • Takanori Hara
  • Takashi Hoshino
  • Shinji Niwa
  • Masao Funahashi
Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
  • 155 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Computed tomography Helical scan System performance function Volume CT dose index Detector configurations Image quality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Fleischmann D, Hallett RL, Rubin GD. CT angiography of peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17:3–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halpern EJ. Triple-rule-out CT angiography for evaluation of acute chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome. Radiology. 2009;252:332–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brandman S, Ko JP. Pulmonary nodule detection, characterization, and management with multidetector computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging. 2011;26:90–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angel E. AIDR 3D iterative reconstruction, a white paper by Toshiba America Medical Systems. 2012(2). http://www.medical.toshiba.com.
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsieh J. Slice-sensitivity profile and noise. In: Computed tomography—principles, design, artifacts and recent advances. Bellingham, SPIE; 2003. pp. 150–3.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bischof CJ, Ehrhardt JC. Modulation transfer function of the EMI CT head scanner. Med Phys. 1977;4:163–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boone JM. Determination of the presampled MTF in computed tomography. Med Phys. 2001;28:356–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanson KM. Detectability in computed tomographic images. Med Phys. 1979;6:441–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kijewski MF, Judy PF. The noise power spectrum of CT images. Phys Med Biol. 1987;32:565–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Medical imaging—the assessment of image quality. ICRU report No. 54. Bethesda: ICRU Publications; 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trevisan D, Ravanelli D, Valentini A. Measurements of computed tomography dose index for clinical scans. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2014;158:389–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goo HW. CT radiation dose optimization and estimation: an update for radiologists. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13:1–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yohei Miura
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katsuhiro Ichikawa
    • 3
  • Ichiro Fujimura
    • 2
    • 4
  • Takanori Hara
    • 5
  • Takashi Hoshino
    • 6
  • Shinji Niwa
    • 2
    • 5
  • Masao Funahashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical TechnologyOsaka General Medical CenterOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Medical ScienceKanazawa UniversityKanazawaJapan
  3. 3.Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health SciencesKanazawa UniversityKanazawaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Radiological TechnologyRinku General Medical CenterIzumisanoJapan
  5. 5.Department of Medical TechnologyNakatsugawa Municipal General HospitalNakatsugawaJapan
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyIshinkai Yao General HospitalYaoJapan

Personalised recommendations