Back to Authors

Cody, Dianna D.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4119-381X

Mayo Clinic

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Citations 6

Multi‐energy computed tomography and material quantification: Current barriers and opportunities for advancement
Jacobsen, Megan C. , Thrower, Sara , Court, Laurence E. , Tamm, Eric P. , Cody, Dianna D. , Layman, Rick R. , Thrower, Sara , Ger, Rachel , Leng, Shuai , Brock, Kristy K. , Cressman, Erik N. K.

Medical Physics | May 26, 2020 | Volume: 47 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 3752-3771

10.1002/mp.14241 Get It

Computed tomography (CT) technology has rapidly evolved since its introduction in the 1970s. It is a highly important diagnostic tool for clinicians as demonstrated by the significant increase in utilization over several decades. However, much of the effort to develop and advance CT applications has been focused on improving visual sensitivity and reducing radiation dose. In comparison to these areas, improvements in quantitative CT have lagged behind. While this could be a consequence of the technological limitations of conventional CT, advanced dual‐energy CT (DECT) and photon‐counting detector CT (PCD‐CT) offer new opportunities for quantitation. Routine use of DECT is becoming more widely available and PCD‐CT is rapidly developing. This review covers efforts to address an unmet need for improved quantitative imaging to better characterize disease, identify biomarkers, and evaluate therapeutic response, with an emphasis on multi‐energy CT applications. The review will primarily discuss applications that have utilized quantitative metrics using both conventional and DECT, such as bone mineral density measurement, evaluation of renal lesions, and diagnosis of fatty liver disease. Other topics that will be discussed include efforts to improve quantitative CT volumetry and radiomics. Finally, we will address the use of quantitative CT to enhance image‐guided techniques for surgery, radiotherapy and interventions and provide unique opportunities for development of new contrast agents.
Principles and applications of multienergy CT: Report of AAPM Task Group 291
Boedeker, Kirsten , Cody, Dianna D. , Flohr, Thomas , Halliburton, Sandra S. , Hsieh, Jiang , Layman, Rick R. , Pelc, Norbert J. , McCollough, Cynthia H. , Duan, Xinhui

Medical Physics | March 26, 2020 | Volume: 47 | Issue: 7 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/mp.14157 Get It

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.
Erratum: “Estimating organ doses from tube current modulated CT examinations using a generalized linear model” [Med. Phys. Vol 44 (4), 1500-1513 (2017)]
Bostani, Maryam, McMillan, Kyle, Lu, Peiyun, Cody, Dianna D. , Arbique, Gary, Greenberg, S. Bruce , DeMarco, John J., Cagnon, Chris H., Kim, Grace Hyun J. , McNitt‐Gray, Michael F.

Medical Physics | June 16, 2017 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 3883-3883

10.1002/mp.12324 Get It

Estimating organ doses from tube current modulated CT examinations using a generalized linear model
Bostani, Maryam, McMillan, Kyle, Lu, Peiyun, Cody, Dianna D. , Arbique, Gary, Greenberg, S. Bruce , DeMarco, John J., Cagnon, Chris H., Kim, Grace Hyun J. , McNitt‐Gray, Michael F.

Medical Physics | January 23, 2017 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 1500-1513

10.1002/mp.12119 Get It

Peak Skin and Eye Lens Radiation Dose From Brain Perfusion CT Based on Monte Carlo Simulation
Zhang, Di , Cagnon, Chris H., Villablanca, J. Pablo , Cody, Dianna D. , Stevens, Donna M., Zankl, M. , DeMarco, John J., Turner, Adam C. , Khatonabadi, M, McNitt‐Gray, Michael F. , McCollough, Cynthia H.

American Journal of Roentgenology | January 19, 2012 | Volume: 198 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 412-417

10.2214/ajr.11.7230 Get It

Dose to Radiosensitive Organs During Routine Chest CT: Effects of Tube Current Modulation
Angel, Erin , Yaghmai, Nazanin, Jude, Cecilia M., DeMarco, John J., Cagnon, Christopher H., Goldin, Jonathan , Primak, Andrew N. , Cody, Dianna D. , Stevens, Donna M., Cagnon, Chris H., McCollough, Cynthia H. , McNitt‐Gray, Michael F.

American Journal of Roentgenology | October 20, 2009 | Volume: 193 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 1340-1345

10.2214/ajr.09.2886 Get It