skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to: 1) compare scanners output by measuring normalized CTDIw (mGy/100mAs) in different CT makes and models and at different kV’s, and 2) quantify the relationship between kV and CTDI and compare this relationship between the different manufacturers. Methods: Study included forty scanners of major CT manufacturers and of various models. Exposure was measured at center and 12 o’clock holes of head and body CTDI phantoms, at all available kV’s, and with the largest or second largest available collimation in each scanner. Average measured CTDI’s from each CT manufacturer were also plotted against kV and the fitting equation: CTDIw (normalized) = a.kVb was calculated. The power (b) value may be considered as an indicator of spectral filtration, which affects the degree of beam hardening. Also, HVLs were measured at several scanners. Results: Results showed GE scanners, on average, had higher normalized CTDIw than those of Siemens and Philips, in both phantom sizes and at all kV’s. ANOVA statistic indicated the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Comparison between Philips and Siemens, however, was not statistically significant. Curve fitting showed b values ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 (for Head periphery and center, respectively); andmore » was about 2.8 for Body phantom periphery, and 3.2 at the center of Body phantom. Fitting equations (kV vs. CTDI) will be presented and discussed. GE’s CTDIw vs. HVL showed very strong correlation (r > 0.99). Conclusion: Partial characterization of scanners output was performed which may be helpful in dose estimation to internal organs. The relatively higher output from GE scanners may be attributed to lower filtration. Work is still in progress to obtain CTDI values from other scanners as well as to measure their HVLs.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]
  1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY (United States)
  2. King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Riyadh (Saudi Arabia)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649308
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE PROCESSING; MANUFACTURERS; PHANTOMS; SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

Citation Formats

Al-Senan, R, and Demirkaya, O. SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956944.
Al-Senan, R, & Demirkaya, O. SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956944.
Al-Senan, R, and Demirkaya, O. Wed . "SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956944.
@article{osti_22649308,
title = {SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers},
author = {Al-Senan, R and Demirkaya, O},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The purpose of this study was to: 1) compare scanners output by measuring normalized CTDIw (mGy/100mAs) in different CT makes and models and at different kV’s, and 2) quantify the relationship between kV and CTDI and compare this relationship between the different manufacturers. Methods: Study included forty scanners of major CT manufacturers and of various models. Exposure was measured at center and 12 o’clock holes of head and body CTDI phantoms, at all available kV’s, and with the largest or second largest available collimation in each scanner. Average measured CTDI’s from each CT manufacturer were also plotted against kV and the fitting equation: CTDIw (normalized) = a.kVb was calculated. The power (b) value may be considered as an indicator of spectral filtration, which affects the degree of beam hardening. Also, HVLs were measured at several scanners. Results: Results showed GE scanners, on average, had higher normalized CTDIw than those of Siemens and Philips, in both phantom sizes and at all kV’s. ANOVA statistic indicated the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Comparison between Philips and Siemens, however, was not statistically significant. Curve fitting showed b values ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 (for Head periphery and center, respectively); and was about 2.8 for Body phantom periphery, and 3.2 at the center of Body phantom. Fitting equations (kV vs. CTDI) will be presented and discussed. GE’s CTDIw vs. HVL showed very strong correlation (r > 0.99). Conclusion: Partial characterization of scanners output was performed which may be helpful in dose estimation to internal organs. The relatively higher output from GE scanners may be attributed to lower filtration. Work is still in progress to obtain CTDI values from other scanners as well as to measure their HVLs.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956944},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: The use of Quantitative Imaging (QI) methods in Clinical Trials requires both verification of adherence to a specified protocol and an assessment of scanner performance under that protocol, which are currently accomplished manually. This work introduces automated phantom identification and image QA measure extraction towards a fully-automated CT phantom QA system to perform these functions and facilitate the use of Quantitative Imaging methods in clinical trials. Methods: This study used a retrospective cohort of CT phantom scans from existing clinical trial protocols - totaling 84 phantoms, across 3 phantom types using various scanners and protocols. The QA system identifiesmore » the input phantom scan through an ensemble of threshold-based classifiers. Each classifier - corresponding to a phantom type - contains a template slice, which is compared to the input scan on a slice-by-slice basis, resulting in slice-wise similarity metric values for each slice compared. Pre-trained thresholds (established from a training set of phantom images matching the template type) are used to filter the similarity distribution, and the slice with the most optimal local mean similarity, with local neighboring slices meeting the threshold requirement, is chosen as the classifier’s matched slice (if it existed). The classifier with the matched slice possessing the most optimal local mean similarity is then chosen as the ensemble’s best matching slice. If the best matching slice exists, image QA algorithm and ROIs corresponding to the matching classifier extracted the image QA measures. Results: Automated phantom identification performed with 84.5% accuracy and 88.8% sensitivity on 84 phantoms. Automated image quality measurements (following standard protocol) on identified water phantoms (n=35) matched user QA decisions with 100% accuracy. Conclusion: We provide a fullyautomated CT phantom QA system consistent with manual QA performance. Further work will include parallel component to automatically verify image acquisition parameters and automated adherence to specifications. Institutional research agreement, Siemens Healthcare; Past recipient, research grant support, Siemens Healthcare; Consultant, Toshiba America Medical Systems; Consultant, Samsung Electronics; NIH Grant support from: U01 CA181156.« less
  • Purpose: Localizer projection radiographs acquired prior to CT scans are used to estimate patient size, affecting the function of Automatic Tube Current Modulation (ATCM) and calculation of the Size Specific Dose Estimate (SSDE). Due to geometric effects, the projected patient size varies with scanner table height and with the orientation of the localizer (AP versus PA). Consequently, variations in scanner table height may affect both CTDIvol and the calculated size-corrected dose index (SSDE). This study sought to characterize these effects. Methods: An anthropomorphic phantom was imaged using an AP localizer, followed by a diagnostic scan using ATCM and our institution’smore » routine abdomen protocol. This was repeated at various scanner table heights, recording the scanner-reported CTDIvol for each diagnostic scan. The width of the phantom was measured from the localizer and diagnostic images using in-house software. The measured phantom width and scanner-reported CTDIvol were used to calculate SSDE. This was repeated using PA localizers followed by diagnostic scans. Results: 1) The localizer-based phantom width varied by up to 54% of the nominal phantom width between minimum and maximum table heights. 2) Changing the table height caused a variation in scanner-reported CTDIvol of a factor greater than 4.6 when using a PA localizer and almost 2 when using an AP localizer. 3) SSDE, calculated from measured phantom size and scanner-reported CTDIvol, varied by a factor of more than 2.8 when using a PA localizer and almost 1.5 when using an AP localizer. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that off-center patient positioning affects the efficacy of ATCM, more severely when localizers are acquired in the PA rather than AP projection. Further, patient positioning errors can cause a large variation in the calculated SSDE. This hinders interpretation of SSDE for individual patients and aggregate SSDE data when evaluating CT protocols and clinical practices.« less
  • Purpose: Total Variation (TV) based iterative reconstruction (IR) methods enable accurate CT image reconstruction from low-dose measurements with sparse projection acquisition, due to the sparsifiable feature of most CT images using gradient operator. However, conventional solutions require large amount of iterations to generate a decent reconstructed image. One major reason is that the expected piecewise constant property is not taken into consideration at the optimization starting point. In this work, we propose an iterative reconstruction method for cone-beam CT (CBCT) using image segmentation to guide the optimization path more efficiently on the regularization term at the beginning of the optimizationmore » trajectory. Methods: Our method applies general knowledge that one tissue component in the CT image contains relatively uniform distribution of CT number. This general knowledge is incorporated into the proposed reconstruction using image segmentation technique to generate the piecewise constant template on the first-pass low-quality CT image reconstructed using analytical algorithm. The template image is applied as an initial value into the optimization process. Results: The proposed method is evaluated on the Shepp-Logan phantom of low and high noise levels, and a head patient. The number of iterations is reduced by overall 40%. Moreover, our proposed method tends to generate a smoother reconstructed image with the same TV value. Conclusion: We propose a computationally efficient iterative reconstruction method for CBCT imaging. Our method achieves a better optimization trajectory and a faster convergence behavior. It does not rely on prior information and can be readily incorporated into existing iterative reconstruction framework. Our method is thus practical and attractive as a general solution to CBCT iterative reconstruction. This work is supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. LR16F010001), National High-tech R&D Program for Young Scientists by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Grant No. 2015AA020917).« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of the study is to compare the volume measurement of subcutaneous tumors in mice with different imaging platforms, namely a GE MRI and a Sofie-Biosciences small animal CT scanner. Methods: A549 human lung carcinoma cells and FaDu human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells were implanted subcutaneously into flanks of nude mice. Three FaDu tumors and three A549 tumors were included in this study. The MRI scans were done with a GE Signa 1.5 Tesla MR scanner using a fast T2-weighted sequence (70mm FOV and 1.2mm slice thickness), while the CT scans were done with themore » CT scanner on a Sofie-Biosciences G8 PET/CT platform dedicated for small animal studies (48mm FOV and 0.2mm slice thickness). Imaging contrast agent was not used in this study. Based on the DICOM images from MRI and CT scans, the tumors were contoured with Philips DICOM Viewer and the tumor volumes were obtained by summing up the contoured area and multiplied by the slice thickness. Results: The volume measurements based on the CT scans agree reasonably with that obtained with MR images for the subcutaneous tumors. The mean difference in the absolute tumor volumes between MRI- and CT-based measurements was found to be −6.2% ± 1.0%, with the difference defined as (VMR – VCT)*100%/VMR. Furthermore, we evaluated the normalized tumor volumes, which were defined for each tumor as V/V{sub 0} where V{sub 0} stands for the volume from the first MR or CT scan. The mean difference in the normalized tumor volumes was found to be 0.10% ± 0.96%. Conclusion: Despite the fact that the difference between normal and abnormal tissues is often less clear on small animal CT images than on MR images, one can still obtain reasonable tumor volume information with the small animal CT scans for subcutaneous murine xenograft models.« less
  • Purpose: To quantify a radiology team’s assessment of image quality differences between two CT scanner models currently in clinical use, with emphasis on spatial resolution that could be impacted by focal spot size. Methods: Modulation Transfer Functions (MTF) measurements were performed by scanning the impulse source insert module of the Catphan 600 at 120/140 kVp with both large (LFS) and small (SFS) focal spots and reconstructed to 2.5mm and 5.0mm thicknesses on a GE Discovery CT750 HD and a LightSpeed VCT CT scanner. MTFs were calculated by summing the 2D PSF along one-dimension to obtain line-spread-function (LSF), and calculating themore » Fourier Transform of the zero-padded and background corrected LSF. Spatial resolution performance was evaluated by comparing MTF curves, 50% and 10% MTF cutoff, and total area under the MTF curve (AUC). In addition, images of the Catphan high-contrast module and a Kagaku anthropomorphic body phantom were acquired from the HD scanner for visual comparisons. Results: For each scanner model, SFS was superior to LFS spatial resolution with respect to 50%/10% MTF cutoff and AUC. For the HD, 50%/10% cutoff was 4.29/7.22cm-1 for the LFS and 4.43/7.45cm-1 for the SFS. VCT outperformed HD, with 50%/10% cutoff of 4.40/7.29 cm-1 for LFS and 4.62/7.47cm-1 for SFS. Scanner model performance in order of decreasing AUC performance was VCT SFS (7.43), HD SFS (7.20), VCT LFS (7.09) and HD LFS (6.93). Visual evaluations of Kagaku phantom images confirmed that VCT outperformed HD. Conclusion: VCT outperformed HD and small focal spot is desired for either model over large focal spot in term of spatial resolution – in agreement with radiologist feedback of overall image quality. In-depth evaluations of clinical impact and focal spot selection mechanisms is currently being assessed.« less