Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Professor Menu,
We agree with the content of the letter referring to our article entitled “Virtual monochromatic images for coronary artery imaging with a spectral photon-counting CT (SPCCT) in comparison to dual-layer CT systems: a phantom and a preliminary human study” published in European Radiology.
Iodine CT numbers in virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) should not depend on the CT system. Theoretically, different CT systems, different technologies, different patient attenuation, and different acquisition protocols should all display similar CT numbers at any given keV [1]. However, we note that discrepancies between CT systems can be expected as the two-base model is only an approximation. One cannot precisely fit the energy-dependent attenuation of different materials by a linear combination of any two-base model, in general, and particularly at low VMIs. This has been shown in studies assessing dual-energy CT platforms from different vendors [2, 3]. On the contrary, iodine CT numbers in conventional images, derived from multi-energy data, do depend on the aforementioned factors. Therefore, we agree that our explanation in the discussion section is only correct for conventional images but not for VMIs.
In our study, we wish to highlight the fundamental purpose of Figure 3a. This figure was meant to provide the difference in contrast, between an insert and the phantom’s material background as found in the Mercury v4.0 phantom (Gammex). Therefore, in our study, we chose the iodine insert at 10 mg/ml so the contrast reached similar attenuation as found in the coronary lumen, i.e., ~ 350 HU at 120 kVp [4]. Now, this contrast takes into account the detectability index calculation using a non-prewhitening observer model with an eye filter, representing the figure of merit of our study [5, 6]. Hence, while Fig. 3a was not meant to provide an accurate analysis of CT numbers in VMIs, we agree that it suggests variability between SPCCT and EID-DLCT CT numbers.
Therefore, as suggested, we performed a quantitative comparison of CT numbers measured on VMIs for energy levels ranging from 40 to 90 keV. To do this, acquisitions were performed on the Multi-energy CT phantom (Gammex, Sun Nuclear Corporation, WI) for the same acquisition and reconstruction parameters as those used in our study (Table 1) [7]. Five acquisitions were performed on a clinical SPCCT prototype (Philips) and an EID-DLCT system (CT7500, Philips). For each acquisition and energy level, a region of interest of 2 cm in diameter was placed inside the iodine insert at 10 mg/ml. The mean pixel attenuation was computed for 6 energy levels on the VMIs, as performed in our study [7]. The measured CT number (\({HU}_{measured}\)) was then compared with its respective theoretical value (\({HU}_{theoretical}\)) for each keV. The relative error [%] between theoretical and measured numbers was calculated between the attenuation coefficient µ, using the following formula:
As shown in Table 2, the mean relative errors of SPCCT and EID-DLCT were in the same range as the reference values (mean error < 1%). Nevertheless, we noted a larger standard deviation for SPCCT which illustrated imperfection according to the energy levels, particularly at the lowest and highest energy levels. This deviation may be due to the status of spectral processing in the current prototype system which is still under development.
Finally, and more importantly, we wish to point out that the main conclusion of our study is still valid for 2 reasons. First, taking into account the contrast calculated in the manuscript, the detectability index of SPCCT images remains far better than the reference EID-DLCT images. For example, while the contrast at 40 keV was 14 ± 1% higher than in the reference images, the detectability was 111% ± 9% higher using a similar reconstruction kernel (HRB vs CB) and slice thickness (0.67 mm). Second, taking into account the theoretical CT numbers of the iodine insert at 10 mg/ml into the calculation of the detectability index, the values of SPCCT were 91% ± 15% far greater than EID-DLCT (Fig. 1). Altogether, these results are mainly explained by the technical benefits of SPCCT providing a higher spatial resolution, a shift towards higher spatial frequency of the noise, and a lower noise magnitude.
Detectability index (d’) values of the simulated lesion according to the energy levels from 40 to 90 keV on the two energy-integrating detector dual-layer computed tomography systems (CT7500 and iQon) and a clinical prototype spectral photon-counting detector computed tomography (SPCCT). d’ values were computed using the theoretical HU values of the iodine insert of 10 mg/mL for each energy level: 843 HU for 40 keV, 555 HU for 50 keV, 375 HU for 60 keV, 263 HU for 70 keV, 193 HU for 80 keV, 146 HU for 90 keV
In conclusion, the letter referring to our article reflects the fact that the current clinical SPCCT prototype is still under development with routine upgrades and that additional work is needed to achieve the full potential that SPCCT technology may bring in future in the radiology field [4, 8,9,10].
References
Alvarez RE, Macovski A (1976) Energy-selective reconstructions in X-ray computerized tomography. Phys Med Biol 21:733–744
Sellerer T, Noël PB, Patino M et al (2018) Dual-energy CT: a phantom comparison of different platforms for abdominal imaging. Eur Radiol 28:2745–2755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5238-5
Jacobsen MC, Cressman ENK, Tamm EP et al (2019) Dual-energy CT: lower limits of iodine detection and quantification. Radiology 292:414–419. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182870
Si-Mohamed S, Boccalini S, Lacombe H et al (2022) Coronary CT angiography with photon-counting CT: first-in-human results. Radiology 303:303–313. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.211780
Samei E, Bakalyar D, Boedeker KL et al (2019) Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: summary of AAPM Task Group 233. Med Phys 46:e735–e756. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13763
Greffier J, Barboteau Y, Gardavaud F (2022) iQMetrix-CT: New software for task-based image quality assessment of CT images. Diagn Interv Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2022.05.007
Greffier J, Si-Mohamed SA, Lacombe H et al (2023) Virtual monochromatic images for coronary artery imaging with a spectral photoncounting CT in comparison to dual-layer CT systems: a phantom and preliminary Human study. Eur Radiol 33:5476–5488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09529-9
Si-Mohamed SA, Greffier J, Miailhes J et al (2021) Comparison of image quality between spectral photon-counting CT and dual-layer CT for the evaluation of lung nodules: a phantom study. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08103-5
Si-Mohamed SA, Sigovan M, Hsu JC et al (2021) In vivo molecular K-edge imaging of atherosclerotic plaque using photon-counting CT. Radiology 300:98–107. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021203968
Greffier J, Villani N, Defez D et al (2022) Spectral CT imaging: Technical principles of dual-energy CT and multi-energy photon-counting CT. Diagn Interv Imaging S2211–5684(22):00221–00222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2022.11.003
Acknowledgements
We also thank Dr. Hélène de Forges, Nîmes University Hospital, France, for her help in editing the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 grant No. 643694.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Pr. Philippe Douek.
Conflict of interest
Yoad Yagil and Klaus Erhard declare relationships with the following companies: Philips Healthcare.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this manuscript.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was not required for the phantom study.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was not required for this phantom study.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
N/A.
Methodology
• Experimental for phantom study.
• Performed at one institution.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This reply refers to the letter available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10285-z.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Greffier, J., Yagil, Y., Erhard, K. et al. Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Quantitative accuracy of virtual monoenergetic images from multi-energy CT. Eur Radiol 34, 2960–2962 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10286-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10286-y