Boedeker, Kirsten

AbstractMulti‐energy computed tomography (MECT) offers the opportunity for advanced visualization, detection, and quantification of select elements (e.g., iodine) or materials (e.g., fat) beyond the capability of standard single‐energy computed tomography (CT). However, the use of MECT requires careful consideration as substantially different hardware and software approaches have been used by manufacturers, including different sets of user‐selected or hidden parameters that affect the performance and radiation dose of MECT. Another important consideration when designing MECT protocols is appreciation of the specific tasks being performed; for instance, differentiating between two different materials or quantifying a specific element. For a given task, it is imperative to consider both the radiation dose and task‐specific image quality requirements. Development of a quality control (QC) program is essential to ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of these MECT applications. Although standard QC procedures have been well established for conventional single‐energy CT, the substantial differences between single‐energy CT and MECT in terms of system implementations, imaging protocols, and clinical tasks warrant QC tests specific to MECT. This task group was therefore charged with developing a systematic QC program designed to meet the needs of MECT applications. In this report, we review the various MECT approaches that are commercially available, including information about hardware implementation, MECT image types, image reconstruction, and postprocessing techniques that are unique to MECT. We address the requirements for MECT phantoms, review representative commercial MECT phantoms, and offer guidance regarding homemade MECT phantoms. We discuss the development of MECT protocols, which must be designed carefully with proper consideration of MECT technology, imaging task, and radiation dose. We then outline specific recommended QC tests in terms of general image quality, radiation dose, differentiation and quantification tasks, and diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

In x‐ray computed tomography (CT), materials with different elemental compositions can have identical CT number values, depending on the mass density of each material and the energy of the detected x‐ray beam. Differentiating and classifying different tissue types and contrast agents can thus be extremely challenging. In multienergy CT, one or more additional attenuation measurements are obtained at a second, third or more energy. This allows the differentiation of at least two materials. Commercial dual‐energy CT systems (only two energy measurements) are now available either using sequential acquisitions of low‐ and high‐tube potential scans, fast tube‐potential switching, beam filtration combined with spiral scanning, dual‐source, or dual‐layer detector approaches. The use of energy‐resolving, photon‐counting detectors is now being evaluated on research systems. Irrespective of the technological approach to data acquisition, all commercial multienergy CT systems circa 2020 provide dual‐energy data. Material decomposition algorithms are then used to identify specific materials according to their effective atomic number and/or to quantitate mass density. These algorithms are applied to either projection or image data. Since 2006, a number of clinical applications have been developed for commercial release, including those that automatically (a) remove the calcium signal from bony anatomy and/or calcified plaque; (b) create iodine concentration maps from contrast‐enhanced CT data and/or quantify absolute iodine concentration; (c) create virtual non‐contrast‐enhanced images from contrast‐enhanced scans; (d) identify perfused blood volume in lung parenchyma or the myocardium; and (e) characterize materials according to their elemental compositions, which can allow in vivo differentiation between uric acid and non‐uric acid urinary stones or uric acid (gout) or non‐uric acid (calcium pyrophosphate) deposits in articulating joints and surrounding tissues. In this report, the underlying physical principles of multienergy CT are reviewed and each of the current technical approaches are described. In addition, current and evolving clinical applications are introduced. Finally, the impact of multienergy CT technology on patient radiation dose is summarized.

Background The rapid development and complexity of new x‐ray computed tomography (CT) technologies and the need for evidence‐based optimization of image quality with respect to radiation and contrast media dose call for an updated approach towards CT performance evaluation. Aims This report offers updated testing guidelines for testing CT systems with an enhanced focus on the operational performance including iterative reconstructions and automatic exposure control (AEC) techniques. Materials and Methods The report was developed based on a comprehensive review of best methods and practices in the scientific literature. The detailed methods include the assessment of 1) CT noise (magnitude, texture, nonuniformity, inhomogeneity), 2) resolution (task transfer function under varying conditions and its scalar reflections), 3) task‐based performance (detectability, estimability), and 4) AEC performance (spatial, noise, and mA concordance of attenuation and exposure modulation). The methods include varying reconstruction and tube current modulation conditions, standardized testing protocols, and standardized quantities and metrology to facilitate tracking, benchmarking, and quantitative comparisons. Results The methods, implemented in cited publications, are robust to provide a representative reflection of CT system performance as used operationally in a clinical facility. The methods include recommendations for phantoms and phantom image analysis. Discussion In line with the current professional trajectory of the field toward quantitation and operational engagement, the stated methods offer quantitation that is more predictive of clinical performance than specification‐based approaches. They can pave the way to approach performance testing of new CT systems not only in terms of acceptance testing (i.e., verifying a device meets predefined specifications), but also system commissioning (i.e., determining how the system can be used most effectively in clinical practice). Conclusion We offer a set of common testing procedures that can be utilized towards the optimal clinical utilization of CT imaging devices, benchmarking across varying systems and times, and a basis to develop future performance‐based criteria for CT imaging.