European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 2745–2755 | Cite as

Dual-energy CT: a phantom comparison of different platforms for abdominal imaging

  • Thorsten SellererEmail author
  • Peter B. Noël
  • Manuel Patino
  • Anushri Parakh
  • Sebastian Ehn
  • Sascha Zeiter
  • Jasmin A. Holz
  • Johannes Hammel
  • Alexander A. Fingerle
  • Franz Pfeiffer
  • David Maintz
  • Ernst J. Rummeny
  • Daniela Muenzel
  • Dushyant V. Sahani
Computed Tomography



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.

Key Points

• 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.


Computed tomography, X-ray Quantitative evaluation Radiologic phantom Comparative study Iodine 



Dual-energy Computed Tomography


Dual-layer CT


Dual-source CT


Hounsfield Units


Rapid kVp Switching CT


Mean Deviation


Root-mean-square Deviation


Region of Interest


Standard Deviation


Virtual Monoenergetic Image



This study has received funding by the European Research Council (ERC, H2020, AdG 695045), the DFG Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz program, by the German Department of Education and Research (BMBF) under grant IMEDO (13GW0072C) and the TUM Institute for Advanced Study, funded by the German Excellence Initiative.

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.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because no human subjects were included in the study.

Ethical approval

Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because no animal subjects were included in the study.


• experimental

• multicentre study


  1. 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. 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
  3. 3.
    Rudin M, Weissleder R (2003) Molecular imaging in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:123–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gatenby RA, Grove O, Gillies RJ (2013) Quantitative Imaging in Cancer Evolution and Ecology. Radiology 269:8–14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patino M, Fuentes JM, Singh S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2015) Iterative Reconstruction Techniques in Abdominopelvic CT: Technical Concepts and Clinical Implementation. Am J Roentgenol 205:W19–W31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noël PB, Renger B, Fiebich M et al (2013) Does Iterative Reconstruction Lower CT Radiation Dose: Evaluation of 15,000 Examinations. Chen C-T, editor. PLoS One Public Library Sci 8:e81141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sauter A, Koehler T, Fingerle AA et al (2016) Ultra Low Dose CT Pulmonary Angiography with Iterative Reconstruction. PLoS One 11:e0162716CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Willemink MJ, Leiner T, de Jong PA et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol 23:1632–1642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCollough CH, Chen GH, Kalender W et al (2012) Achieving Routine Submillisievert CT Scanning: Report from the Summit on Management of Radiation Dose in CT. Radiology 264:567–580CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Wintermark M, Reichhart M, Thiran JP et al (2002) Prognostic accuracy of cerebral blood flow measurement by perfusion computed tomography, at the time of emergency room admission, in acute stroke patients. Ann Neurol 51:417–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer MA, Kartalis N, Grigoriadis A et al (2015) Perfusion computed tomography for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur Radiol 25:3123–3132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG (2015) Dual- and Multi-Energy CT: Principles, Technical Approaches, and Clinical Applications. Radiology 276:637–653CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Johnson TRC, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ et al (2006) Dual-source CT cardiac imaging: Initial experience. Eur Radiol 16:1409–1415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol Springer-Verlag 16:256–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM, Krishnaraj A, Kalva SP, Sahani DV (2013) Initial experience with single-source dual-energy CT abdominal angiography and comparison with single-energy CT angiography: Image quality, enhancement, diagnosis and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 23:351–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karcaaltincaba M, Aykut A (2010) Dual-energy CT revisited by multidetector ct: review of principles and clinical applications. Diagn Interv Radiol 17:181–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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. 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
  22. 22.
    Agrawal MD, Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Sahani DV (2014) Oncologic Applications of Dual-Energy CT in the Abdomen. RadioGraphics 34:589–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marin D, Boll DT, Mileto A, Nelson RC (2014) State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Radiology 271:327–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Flors L, Leiva-Salinas C, Norton PT, Patrie JT, Hagspiel KD (2013) Endoleak Detection After Endovascular Repair of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Using Dual-Source Dual-Energy CT: Suitable Scanning Protocols and Potential Radiation Dose Reduction. Am J Roentgenol 200:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chandarana H, Megibow AJ, Cohen BA et al (2011) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: Phantom study and preliminary experience with renal masses. Am J Roentgenol 196:693–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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. 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. 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:
  30. 30.
    Kalender W, Perman W, Vetter J, Klotz E (1986) Evaluation of a prototype dual-energy computed tomographic apparatus. I. Phantom studies. Med Phys 13:334–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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. Investig Radiol 47:656–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 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
  34. 34.
    Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A et al (2006) Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: first experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol 16:2739–2747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thorsten Sellerer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter B. Noël
    • 1
    • 2
  • Manuel Patino
    • 3
  • Anushri Parakh
    • 3
  • Sebastian Ehn
    • 1
  • Sascha Zeiter
    • 4
  • Jasmin A. Holz
    • 4
  • Johannes Hammel
    • 1
  • Alexander A. Fingerle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Franz Pfeiffer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • David Maintz
    • 4
  • Ernst J. Rummeny
    • 2
  • Daniela Muenzel
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dushyant V. Sahani
    • 3
  1. 1.Chair for Biomedical Physics, Department of Physics and Munich School of BioEngineeringTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Division of Abdominal Imaging, Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany
  5. 5.Institute for Advanced StudyTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations