Image Quality Evaluation in Contrast Agents Computed Tomography Imaging

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Bioengineering book series (LNBE)

Abstract

This main goal of this study was to evaluate image quality in single-energy (SE) and dual-energy (DE) CT imaging with the presence of barium and iodine. A fabricated polymethyl methacrylate abdomen phantom with 32 cm diameter size was used to mimic human abdomen. Two different contrast agents: barium and iodine, were scanned separately. The imaging parameters for SECT were set at tube voltage 80, 120 and 140 kV while the imaging parameters for DECT were set at fixed tube voltage 80/140 kV. Both scan modes were set at the different pitch: 0.6 and 1.0 mm, and the slice thickness was set at 3.0 and 5.0 mm with automatic exposure control for the tube current. The CT images obtained from both scanning were analysed to evaluate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Barium and iodine gave highest SNR of 39.30 and 182.68, respectively, at a tube voltage of 140 kV, a pitch of 1 and a slice thickness of 3 mm for SECT. In DECT mode, the highest SNR for barium and iodine were 36.74 and 112.15 respectively at pitch 1 and slice thickness of 3 mm. There was no significant difference between SNR of barium and iodine obtained with both CT imaging modes with p-values of 0.75 and 0.12, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from Ministry of Higher Education through Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS).

References

  1. 1.
    He P, Wei B, Feng P, Chen M, Mi D (2013) Material discrimination based on K-edge characteristics. Comput Math Methods MedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson NG, Butler AP, Scott NJA, Cook NJ, Butzer JS, Schleich N, Firsching M, Grasset R, Ruiter ND, Campbell M et al (2010) Spectroscopic (multi-energy) CT distinguishes iodine and barium contrast material in MICE. Eur Radiol 20:2126–2134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bateman CJ, Rajendran K, Ruiter NJA, Butler AP, Butler PH, Renaud PF (2015) The hidden K-edge signal in K-edge imaging. 1–7 arXiv:1506.04223v1 [physics.med-ph]
  4. 4.
    He P, Wei B, Cong W, Wang G (2012) Optimization of K-edge imaging with spectral CT. Med Phys 39Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bae KT (2010) Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology 256Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, Hatemura M, Imuta M, Nakaura T, Ryu D, Morishita S, Sultana S, Sato N et al (2005) Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 237:945–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buls N, Van Gompel G, Van Cauteren T, Nieboer K, Willekens I, Verfaillie G, Evans P, Macholl S, Newton B, Mey JD (2015) Contrast agent and radiation dose reduction in abdominal CT by a combination of low tube voltage and advanced image reconstruction algorithms. Eur J Radiol 25:1023–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fessler J (2009). X-ray imaging : noise and SNR. Chapter 6, X-ray imaging noise SNR. 1–11Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanson KM (1981) Noise and contrast discrimination in computed tomography. Radiol Skull Brain 5:3941–3955Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaudhari A (2012) Improving signal to noise ratio of low-dose CT image using wavelet transform. Int J Comput Sci Eng 4:779–787Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldman LW (2007) Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality. J Nucl Med Technol 35:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldman LW (2008) Principles of CT: multislice CT. J Nucl Med Technol 36:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu L, Liu X, Leng S, Kofler JM, Ramirez-giraldo JC, Qu M, Christner J, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH (2012) Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. Imaging Med 1:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zukhi J, Yusob D, Tajuddin AA, Vuanghao L, Zainon R (2017) Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose using gold nanoparticles and other clinical contrast agents in dual-energy Computed Tomography (CT): CT abdomen phantom. IOP Conf Ser J Phys Conf Ser 851Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bongers MN, Schabel C, Krauss B, Claussen CD, Nikolaou K, Thomas C (2017) Potential of gadolinium as contrast material in second generation dual energy computed tomography—An ex vivo phantom study. Clin Imaging 43:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu X, Mccullough WP, Mecca P, Servaes S (2016) Dual-energy compared to single-energy CT in pediatric imaging: a phantom study for DECT clinical guidance. Pediatr Radiol 46:1671–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu L, Primak AN, Liu X, Mccollough CH (2009) Image quality optimization and evaluation of linearly mixed images in dual-source, dual-energy CT. Med Phys 36:1019–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siemens AG (2008) Dual energy CT SOMATOM definitionGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Primak AN, Mccollough CH, Michael R, Zhang RTRJ, Fletcher JG (2006) Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi—detector row CT. Radiographics. 1785–1795Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Zukhi
    • 1
  • D. Yusob
    • 1
  • A. A. Tajuddin
    • 2
  • R. Zainon
    • 1
  1. 1.Oncological and Radiological Sciences Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains MalaysiaKepala BatasMalaysia
  2. 2.School of PhysicsUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia

Personalised recommendations