Hsieh, Scott S.

Abstract Background The most compelling advantage that photon counting detectors (PCDs) currently have over energy integrating detectors (EIDs) for CT applications may be their improved spatial resolution. However, PCDs are difficult to manufacture. Next‐generation EIDs using conventional scintillator sensors could be easier to mass produce, but their spatial resolution is thought to be limited by fill factor considerations. Specifically, each EID pixel comprises a block of scintillator surrounded by inactive, optically reflective septa. The minimum width of optically reflective septa is ∼0.1 mm, and unless this is shrunk, decreases in pixel pitch inevitably cause an increasing fraction of dead space. Purpose To propose a modified system geometry in which the detector pixels are tilted by a few degrees, such that rays that are incident on reflective septa would later encounter scintillator. Because reflective septa are nearly transparent to x‐rays compared to scintillator, this geometry restores much of the lost fill factor. Methods Tilting can be achieved in several different ways. We discuss three implementation options: individual detector modules may be tilted, with gaps between modules that are seamless from the perspective of the x‐ray source; the whole detector can be arranged to point towards a “false” focal spot that is offset slightly from the true focal spot; the scintillator wafer can structured differently, e.g. by sawing it at an angle. The pros and cons of each option are discussed. Tilting introduces blurring, but a smaller pixel size improves resolution, and the combination of both improves both resolution and fill factor. We used Monte Carlo simulations to compare a conventional detector with 1.0 mm, 0.75, or 0.5 mm pixel pitch to a tilted detector with 0.5 mm pixel pitch. We assumed negligible optical crosstalk and electronic noise, that the scintillator was 1.5 mm thick with attenuation similar to gadolinium oxysulfide, that the reflective septa was 0.1 mm wide at standard resolution or 0.08 mm at higher resolutions and composed of a low‐attenuating polymer similar to acrylic infused with 20% titanium content. We also compared this to a simple model of a CdTe detector with 1.6 mm thickness, 0.3 mm pixel pitch, and Gaussian charge sharing. Results Tilt increases the aperture of the pixel in an energy‐dependent fashion. With a 1D ASG (85% fill factor) and at 120 kVp, the detection efficiencies (DQE(0)) of a conventional detector at 1.0 mm, conventional detector at 0.5 mm pixel pitch, CdTe detector, and tilted detector at 0.5 mm pixel pitch are 65%, 55%, 66%, and 64%, respectively. With a sparse 2D ASG (1.5 × 3.0 mm openings, 86% fill factor), the DQE(0) of a tilted detector with 0.75 mm is 69%. The DQE(0) of all detectors decreases at higher energy because of punch‐through. Conclusions By tilting detector modules a few degrees, energy‐integrating detectors can provide increases in spatial resolution without the expected losses in fill factor. This architecture could bring the resolution improvements associated with photon counting CT into the domain of energy‐integrating detectors equipped with conventional scintillator sensors.

AbstractBackgroundPhoton counting X‐ray detectors (PCDs) provide better spatial resolution than energy integrating X‐ray detectors, but even higher resolution is desired in some applications. Certain charge sharing compensation techniques such as coincidence counting preferentially detect photons that arrive at the boundary between pixels, and this could be used for subpixel localization of incident photons and enhanced spatial resolution.PurposeTo estimate improvements to spatial resolution and detective quantum efficiency that are possible when using coincidence counting for high‐resolution, non‐spectral imaging.MethodsThe modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) were estimated using numerical simulations of a two‐dimensional parallel‐beam CT system. Coincidence counters were modeled either geometrically or with Monte Carlo simulations. The geometric model consisted of narrow coincidence counters that interlaced with wider ordinary pixels, and showed that using standard filtered backprojection decreases low‐frequency DQE, but that a frequency weighting technique could be used to restore DQE. The Monte Carlo simulations were used to estimate the possible improvements that could be expected from real systems. The pixel pitch was 0.25 mm and the source apertures considered were 0, 0.125, and 0.5 mm. A numerical stent phantom was also used to illustrate possible improvements.ResultsAssuming a 0.125 mm source aperture and the Monte Carlo model, the limiting MTF (at 10%) increased from 20 to 40 lp/cm using coincidence counters. This can be explained by the increased sampling (and higher Nyquist limit) possible from coincidence counters. In the geometric model, coincidence counters are compared to conventional double sampling techniques such as in‐plane flying focal spot, and the MTF at 38 lp/cm increased from 5% to 53%. Without the frequency weighting technique, low‐frequency DQE was reduced by about 20%, but these losses are recovered with frequency weighting. Improvements are much more modest with the 0.25 mm source aperture because the system becomes source‐limited.ConclusionsCoincidence counting could be used to increase spatial resolution in PCDs. The increases in system resolution could be large if a high‐resolution X‐ray source were available.

AbstractBackgroundDeep‐learning‐based image reconstruction and noise reduction methods (DLIR) have been increasingly deployed in clinical CT. Accurate image quality assessment of these methods is challenging as the performance measured using physical phantoms may not represent the true performance of DLIR in patients since DLIR is trained mostly on patient images.PurposeIn this work, we aim to develop a patient‐data‐based virtual imaging trial framework and, as a first application, use it to measure the spatial resolution properties of a DLIR method.MethodsThe patient‐data‐based virtual imaging trial framework consists of five steps: (1) insertion of lesions into projection domain data using the acquisition geometry of the patient exam to simulate different lesion characteristics; (2) insertion of noise into projection domain data using a realistic photon statistical model of the CT system to simulate different dose levels; (3) creation of DLIR‐processed images from projection or image data; (4) creation of ensembles of DLIR‐processed patient images from a large number of noise and lesion realizations; and (5) evaluation of image quality using ensemble DLIR images. This framework was applied to measure the spatial resolution of a ResNet based deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) trained on patient images. Lesions in a cylindrical shape and different contrast levels (−500, −100, −50, −20, −10 HU) were inserted to the lower right lobe of the liver in a patient case. Multiple dose levels were simulated (50%, 25%, 12.5%). Each lesion and dose condition had 600 noise realizations. Multiple reconstruction and denoising methods were used on all the noise realizations, including the original filtered‐backprojection (FBP), iterative reconstruction (IR), and the DCNN method with three different strength setting (DCNN‐weak, DCNN‐medium, and DCNN‐strong). Mean lesion signal was calculated by performing ensemble averaging of all the noise realizations for each lesion and dose condition and then subtracting the lesion‐present images from the lesion absent images. Modulation transfer functions (MTFs) both in‐plane and along the z‐axis were calculated based on the mean lesion signals. The standard deviations of MTFs at each condition were estimated with bootstrapping: randomly sampling (with replacement) all the DLIR/FBP/IR images from the ensemble data (600 samples) at each condition. The impact of varying lesion contrast, dose levels, and denoising strengths were evaluated. Statistical analysis with paired t‐test was used to compare the z‐axis and in‐plane spatial resolution of five algorithms for five different contrasts and three dose levels.ResultsThe in‐plane and z‐axis spatial resolution degradation of DCNN becomes more severe as the contrast or radiation dose decreased, or DCNN denoising strength increased. In comparison with FBP, a 59.5% and 4.1% reduction of in‐plane and z‐axis MTF (in terms of spatial frequencies at 50% MTF), respectively, was observed at low contrast (−10 HU) for DCNN with the highest denoising strength at 25% routine dose level. When the dose level reduces from 50% to 12.5% of routine dose, the in‐plane and z‐axis MTFs reduces from 92.1% to 76.3%, and from 98.9% to 95.5%, respectively, at contrast of −100 HU, using FBP as the reference. For most conditions of contrasts and dose levels, significant differences were found among the five algorithms, with the following relationship in both in‐plane and cross‐plane spatial resolution: FBP > DCNN‐Weak > IR > DCNN‐Medium > DCNN‐Strong. The spatial resolution difference among algorithms decreases at higher contrast or dose levels.ConclusionsA patient‐data‐based virtual imaging trial framework was developed and applied to measuring the spatial resolution properties of a DCNN noise reduction method at different contrast and dose levels using real patient data. As with other non‐linear image reconstruction and post‐processing techniques, the evaluated DCNN method degraded the in‐plane and z‐axis spatial resolution at lower contrast levels, lower radiation dose, and higher denoising strength.

Introduction: The surgical technique for urinary stone removal is partly influenced by its fragility, as prognosticated by the clinician. This feasibility study aims to develop a linear regression model from CT-based radiomic markers to predict kidney stone comminution time in vivo with two ultrasonic lithotrites. Materials and Methods: Patients identified by urologists at our institution as eligible candidates for percutaneous nephrolithotomy were prospectively enrolled. The active engagement time of the lithotrite in breaking the stone during surgery denoted the comminution time of each stone. The comminution rate was computed as the stone volume disintegrated per minute. Stones were grouped into three fragility classes (fragile, moderate, hard), based on inverse of the comminution rates with respect to the mean. Multivariable linear regression models were trained with radiomic features extracted from clinical CT images to predict comminution times in vivo . The model with the least root mean squared error (RMSE) on comminution times and the fewest misclassification of fragility was finally selected. Results: Twenty-eight patients with 31 stones in total were included in this study. Stones in the cohort averaged 1557 (±2472) mm 3 in volume and 5.3 (±7.4) minutes in comminution time. Ten stones had nonmoderate fragility. Linear regression of stone volume alone predicted comminution time with an RMSE of 6.8 minutes and missed all 10 stones with nonmoderate fragility. A fragility model that included stone volume, internal morphology, shape-based radiomics, and device type improved RMSE to below 3.3 minutes and correctly classified 20/21 moderate and 6/10 nonmoderate stones. Conclusions: CT metrics-based fragility models may provide information to surgeons regarding kidney stone fragility and facilitate the selection of stone removal procedures.

Abstract Background A common rule of thumb for object detection is the Rose criterion, which states that a signal must be five standard deviations above background to be detectable to a human observer. The validity of the Rose criterion in CT imaging is limited due to the presence of correlated noise. Recent reconstruction and denoising methodologies are also able to restore apparent image quality in very noisy conditions, and the ultimate limits of these methodologies are not yet known. Purpose To establish a lower bound on the minimum achievable signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) for object detection, below which detection performance is poor regardless of reconstruction or denoising methodology. Methods We consider a numerical observer that operates on projection data and has perfect knowledge of the background and the objects to be detected, and determine the minimum projection SNR that is necessary to achieve predetermined lesion‐level sensitivity and case‐level specificity targets. We define a set of discrete signal objects that encompasses any lesion of interest and could include lesions of different sizes, shapes, and locations. The task is to determine which object of is present, or to state the null hypothesis that no object is present. We constrain each object in to have equivalent projection SNR and use Monte Carlo methods to calculate the required projection SNR necessary. Because our calculations are performed in projection space, they impose an upper limit on the performance possible from reconstructed images. We chose to be a collection of elliptical or circular low contrast metastases and simulated detection of these objects in a parallel beam system with Gaussian statistics. Unless otherwise stated, we assume a target of 80% lesion‐level sensitivity and 80% case‐level specificity and a search field of view that is 6 cm by 6 cm by 10 slices. Results When contains only a single object, our problem is equivalent to two‐alternative forced choice (2AFC) and the required projection SNR is 1.7. When consists of circular 6‐mm lesions at different locations in space, the required projection SNR is 5.1. When is extended to include ellipses and circles of different sizes, the required projection SNR increases to 5.3. The required SNR increases if the sensitivity target, specificity target, or search field of view increases. Conclusions Even with perfect knowledge of the background and target objects, the ideal observer still requires an SNR of approximately 5. This is a lower bound on the SNR that would be required in real conditions, where the background and target objects are not known perfectly. Algorithms that denoise lesions with less than 5 projection SNR, regardless of the denoising methodology, are expected to show vanishing effects or false positive lesions.

AbstractPurposeEye‐tracking approaches have been used to understand the visual search process in radiology. However, previous eye‐tracking work in computer tomography (CT) has been limited largely to single cross‐sectional images or video playback of the reconstructed volume, which do not accurately reflect radiologists' visual search activities and their interactivity with three‐dimensional image data at a computer workstation (e.g., scroll, pan, and zoom) for visual evaluation of diagnostic imaging targets. We have developed a platform that integrates eye‐tracking hardware with in‐house‐developed reader workstation software to allow monitoring of the visual search process and reader‐image interactions in clinically relevant reader tasks. The purpose of this work is to validate the spatial accuracy of eye‐tracking data using this platform for different eye‐tracking data acquisition modes.MethodsAn eye‐tracker was integrated with a previously developed workstation designed for reader performance studies. The integrated system captured real‐time eye movement and workstation events at 1000 Hz sampling frequency. The eye‐tracker was operated either in head‐stabilized mode or in free‐movement mode. In head‐stabilized mode, the reader positioned their head on a manufacturer‐provided chinrest. In free‐movement mode, a biofeedback tool emitted an audio cue when the head position was outside the data collection range (general biofeedback) or outside a narrower range of positions near the calibration position (strict biofeedback). Four radiologists and one resident were invited to participate in three studies to determine eye‐tracking spatial accuracy under three constraint conditions: head‐stabilized mode (i.e., with use of a chin rest), free movement with general biofeedback, and free movement with strict biofeedback. Study 1 evaluated the impact of head stabilization versus general or strict biofeedback using a cross‐hair target prior to the integration of the eye‐tracker with the image viewing workstation. In Study 2, after integration of the eye‐tracker and reader workstation, readers were asked to fixate on targets that were randomly distributed within a volumetric digital phantom. In Study 3, readers used the integrated system to scroll through volumetric patient CT angiographic images while fixating on the centerline of designated blood vessels (from the left coronary artery to dorsalis pedis artery). Spatial accuracy was quantified as the offset between the center of the intended target and the detected fixation using units of image pixels and the degree of visual angle.ResultsThe three head position constraint conditions yielded comparable accuracy in the studies using digital phantoms. For Study 1 involving the digital crosshairs, the median ± the standard deviation of offset values among readers were 15.2 ± 7.0 image pixels with the chinrest, 14.2 ± 3.6 image pixels with strict biofeedback, and 19.1 ± 6.5 image pixels with general biofeedback. For Study 2 using the random dot phantom, the median ± standard deviation offset values were 16.7 ± 28.8 pixels with use of a chinrest, 16.5 ± 24.6 pixels using strict biofeedback, and 18.0 ± 22.4 pixels using general biofeedback, which translated to a visual angle of about 0.8° for all three conditions. We found no obvious association between eye‐tracking accuracy and target size or view time. In Study 3 viewing patient images, use of the chinrest and strict biofeedback demonstrated comparable accuracy, while the use of general biofeedback demonstrated a slightly worse accuracy. The median ± standard deviation of offset values were 14.8 ± 11.4 pixels with use of a chinrest, 21.0 ± 16.2 pixels using strict biofeedback, and 29.7 ± 20.9 image pixels using general biofeedback. These corresponded to visual angles ranging from 0.7° to 1.3°.ConclusionsAn integrated eye‐tracker system to assess reader eye movement and interactive viewing in relation to imaging targets demonstrated reasonable spatial accuracy for assessment of visual fixation. The head‐free movement condition with audio biofeedback performed similarly to head‐stabilized mode.