Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of image quality between spectral photon-counting CT and dual-layer CT for the evaluation of lung nodules: a phantom study

  • Physics
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the image quality (IQ) of a spectral photon-counting CT (SPCCT) using filtered back projection (FBP) and hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms (iDose4), in comparison with a dual-layer CT (DLCT) system, and to choose the best image quality according to the IR level for SPCCT.

Methods

Two phantoms were scanned using a standard lung protocol (120 kVp, 40 mAs) with SPCCT and DLCT systems. Raw data were reconstructed using FBP and 9 iDose4 levels (i1/i2/i3/i4/i5/i6/i7/i9/i11) for SPCCT and 7 for DLCT (i1/i2/i3/i4/i5/i6/i7). Noise power spectrum and task-based transfer function (TTF) were computed. Detectability index (d′) was computed for detection of 4 mm ground-glass nodule (GGN) and solid nodule. Two chest radiologists performed an IQ evaluation (noise/nodule sharpness/nodule conspicuity/overall IQ) in consensus, and chose the best image for SPCCT.

Results

Noise magnitude was −47% ± 2% lower on average with SPCCT than with DLCT for iDose4 range from i1 to i6. Average NPS spatial frequencies increased for SPCCT in comparison with DLCT. TTF also increased, except for the air insert with FBP, and i1/i2/i3. Higher detectability was found for SPCCT for both GGN and solid nodules. IQ for both types of nodule was rated consistently higher with SPCCT than with DLCT for the same iDose4 level. For SPCCT and both nodules, the scores for noise and conspicuity improved with increasing iDose4 level. iDose4 level 6 provided the best subjective IQ for both types of nodule.

Conclusions

Higher IQ for GGN and solid nodules was demonstrated with SPCCT compared with DLCT with better detectability using iDose4.

Key Points

  • Using spectral photon-counting CT compared with dual-layer CT, noise magnitude was reduced with improvements in spatial resolution and detectability of ground-glass nodules and solid lung nodules.

  • As the iDose 4 level increased, noise magnitude was reduced and detectability of ground-glass and solid lung nodules was better for both CT systems.

  • For spectral photon-counting CT imaging, two chest radiologists determined iDose 4 level 6 as the best image quality for detecting ground-glass nodules and solid lung nodules.

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

Abbreviations

DLCT:

Dual-layer computed tomography

ESF:

Edge spread function

FBP:

Filtered back projection

FOV:

Field-of-view

GGN:

Ground-glass nodule

iDose4 :

Intelligent dose

IR:

Iterative reconstruction

LSF:

Line spread function

NPS:

Noise power spectrum

NPWE:

Nonprewhitening model observer with eye filter

SPCCT:

Spectral photon-counting computed tomography

TTF:

Task-based transfer function

References

  1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA et al (2020) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 382:503–513. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Si-Mohamed S, Boussel L, Douek P (2020) Clinical applications of spectral photon-counting CT. In: Spectral, photon counting computed tomography: technology and applications, CRC Press. pp 97–116

  4. Si-Mohamed S, Bar-Ness D, Sigovan M et al (2017) Review of an initial experience with an experimental spectral photon-counting computed tomography system. Nucl Inst Methods Phys Res B 873:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2017.04.014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Taguchi K, Iwanczyk JS (2013) Vision 20/20: Single photon counting x-ray detectors in medical imaging. Med Phys 40:100901. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4820371

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kopp FK, Daerr H, Si-Mohamed S et al (2018) Evaluation of a preclinical photon-counting CT prototype for pulmonary imaging. Sci Rep 8:17386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35888-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sigovan M, Si-Mohamed S, Bar-Ness D et al (2019) Feasibility of improving vascular imaging in the presence of metallic stents using spectral photon counting CT and K-edge imaging. Sci Rep 9:19850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56427-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Si-Mohamed S, Thivolet A, Bonnot P-E et al (2018) Improved peritoneal cavity and abdominal organ imaging using a biphasic contrast agent protocol and spectral photon counting computed tomography K-edge imaging. Invest Radiol 53:629–639. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000483

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Blevis I (2020) X-Ray detectors for spectral photon-counting CT. In: Spectral, photon counting computed tomography: technology and applications, CRC Press. pp 179–191

  10. Hsieh (2020) Design considerations for photon-counting detectors: connecting detectors characteristics to system performances. In: Spectral, photon counting computed tomography: technology and applications, CRC Press. pp 326–341

  11. Bartlett DJ, Koo CW, Bartholmai BJ et al (2019) High-resolution chest computed tomography imaging of the lungs: impact of 1024 matrix reconstruction and photon-counting detector computed tomography. Invest Radiol 54:129–137. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000524

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Si-Mohamed S, Boccalini S, Rodesch P-A et al (2021) Feasibility of lung imaging with a large field-of-view spectral photon-counting CT system. Diagn Interv Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2021.01.001

  13. da Silva J, Grönberg F, Cederström B et al (2019) Resolution characterization of a silicon-based, photon-counting computed tomography prototype capable of patient scanning. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 6, 043502. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.6.4.043502

  14. Boccalini S, Si-Mohamed S, Dessouky R, Sigovan M, Boussel L, Douek P. (2021) Feasibility of human vascular imaging of the neck with a large field-of-view spectral photon-counting CT system. Diagn Interv Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2020.12.004

  15. Ferda J, Vendiš T, Flohr T et al (2021) Computed tomography with a full FOV photon-counting detector in a clinical setting, the first experience. Eur J Radiol 137:109614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Greffier J, Fernandez A, Macri F, Freitag C, Metge L, Beregi JP (2013) Which dose for what image? Iterative reconstruction for CT scan. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2013.03.008

  17. Greffier J, Frandon J, Larbi A, Beregi JP, Pereira F (2019) CT iterative reconstruction algorithms: a task-based image quality assessmen. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06359-6

  18. Samei E, Richard S (2015) Assessment of the dose reduction potential of a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm using a task-based performance metrology. Med Phys 42:314–323. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4903899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Verdun FR, Racine D, Ott JG et al (2015) Image quality in CT: from physical measurements to model observers. Phys Med 31:823–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Greffier J, Boccalini S, Beregi JP et al (2020) CT dose optimization for the detection of pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (PAVM): a phantom study. Diagn Interv Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2019.12.009

  21. Rotzinger DC, Racine D, Beigelman-Aubry C et al (2018) Task-based model observer assessment of a partial model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm in thoracic oncologic multidetector CT. Sci Rep:8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36045-4

  22. Greffier J, Frandon J, Pereira F et al (2020) Optimization of radiation dose for CT detection of lytic and sclerotic bone lesions: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 30:1075–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06425-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. American College of Radiology (2015) Lung CT screening reporting and data system lung-RADS). https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Lung-Rads.

  24. Steadman R, Herrmann C, Livne A (2017) ChromAIX2: a large area, high count-rate energy-resolving photon counting ASIC for a spectral CT prototype. Nucl Inst Methods Phys Res B 862:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2017.05.010

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Greffier J, Larbi A, Frandon J et al (2019) Comparison of noise-magnitude and noise-texture across two generations of iterative reconstruction algorithms from three manufacturers. Diagn Interv Imaging 100:401–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2019.04.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Greffier J, Si-Mohamed S, Dabli D et al (2021) Performance of four dual-energy CT platforms for abdominal imaging: a task-based image quality assessment based on phantom data. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07671-2

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful to J. Solomon for support regarding the use of imQuest software.

We also thank Teresa Sawyers, Medical Writer, at the BESPIM, Nîmes University Hospital, France, for her help in editing the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by European Union Horizon 2020 grant No 643694.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Salim Si-Mohamed and Joel Greffier contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INSA-Lyon, University of Lyon, University Claude-Bernard Lyon 1, UJM-Saint-Étienne, CNRS, Inserm, CREATIS UMR 5220, U1206, 69100, Villeurbanne, France

    Salim A. Si-Mohamed, Sara Boccalini, Pierre-Antoine Rodesch, Loic Boussel & Philippe Douek

  2. Radiology Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69500, Lyon, France

    Salim A. Si-Mohamed, Jade Miailhes, Sara Boccalini, Loic Boussel & Philippe Douek

  3. Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Radiology, CHU Cardiologique Louis Pradel, 59 Boulevard Pinel, 69500, Bron, France

    Salim A. Si-Mohamed & Philippe Douek

  4. Department of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group, 2415, Nimes, EA, France

    Joel Greffier, Djamel Dabli & Jean-Paul Beregi

  5. Medical Physics Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69000, Lyon, France

    Aurélie Vuillod

  6. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Niels van der Werf

  7. Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Niels van der Werf

  8. Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Rue du Grand-Pré 1, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Damien Racine

  9. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    David Rotzinger & Fabio Becce

  10. Philips Research, Haifa, Israel

    Yoad Yagil

  11. Philips Research, Suresnes, France

    Philippe Coulon

  12. CT Clinical Science, 5682, Best, The Netherlands

    Alain Vlassenbroek

Authors
  1. Salim A. Si-Mohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joel Greffier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jade Miailhes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara Boccalini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pierre-Antoine Rodesch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aurélie Vuillod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Niels van der Werf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Djamel Dabli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Damien Racine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. David Rotzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Fabio Becce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yoad Yagil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Philippe Coulon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Alain Vlassenbroek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Loic Boussel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Jean-Paul Beregi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Philippe Douek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salim A. Si-Mohamed.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Pr. Philippe DOUEK.

Conflict of interest

Yoad Yagil, Philippe Coulon, Alain Vlassenbroek declare relationships with the following companies: Philips Healthcare.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Methodology

• Comparative phantom study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Si-Mohamed, S.A., Greffier, J., Miailhes, J. et al. Comparison of image quality between spectral photon-counting CT and dual-layer CT for the evaluation of lung nodules: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 32, 524–532 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08103-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08103-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation