Yu, Lifeng

AbstractBackgroundCurrent CT quality control (QC) for low‐contrast detectability relies on visual inspection and measurement of contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR). However, CNR numbers become unreliable when it comes to nonlinear methods, such as iterative reconstruction (IR) and deep‐learning‐based techniques. Image quality metrics using channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) have been validated to be well correlated with human observer performance on phantom‐based and patient‐based tasks, but it has not been widely used in routine CT QC mainly because the CHO calculation typically requires a large number of repeated scans in order to provide accurate and precise estimate of index of detectability (d′).PurposeThe main goal of this work is to optimize channel filters and other CHO parameters and accurately estimate the low‐contrast detectability with minimum number of repeated scans for the widely used American College of Radiology (ACR) CT accreditation phantom so that it can become practically feasible for routine CT QC tests.MethodsTo provide a converged d′ value, an ACR phantom was repeatedly scanned 100 times at three dose levels (24, 12, and 6 mGy). Images were reconstructed with two kernels (FBP Br44 and IR Br44‐3). d′ as a function of number of repeated scans was determined for different number of background regions of interest (ROIs), different number of low‐contrast objects, different number of slices per each object, and different channel filter options. A reference d′ was established using the optimized CHO setting, and the bias of d′ was quantified using the d′ calculated from all 100 repeated scans. The variation of d′ at each condition was estimated using a resampling method combining random subsampling among 100 repeated scans and bootstrapping of the ensembles of signal and background ROIs.ResultsOptimized parameters in CHO calculation were determined: two background ROIs per object, four objects per low‐contrast object size, nine non‐overlapping slices per object, and a 4‐channel Gabor filter. The bias and uncertainty were estimated at different numbers of repeated scans using these parameters. When only one single scan was used in the CHO calculation, the bias of d′ was below 6.2% and the uncertainty 15.6‐19.6% for the 6, 5, and 4 mm objects, while with three repeated scans the bias was below 2.0% and uncertainty 8.7‐10.9% for the three object sizes.ConclusionWith optimized parameter settings in CHO, efficient and accurate measurement of low‐contrast detectability on the commonly used ACR phantom becomes feasible, which could potentially lead to adoption of CHO‐based low‐contrast evaluation in routine QC tests.

Abstract Objective. To develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) noise reduction technique for ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector computed tomography (UHR-PCD-CT) that can be efficiently implemented using only clinically available reconstructed images. The developed technique was demonstrated for skeletal survey, lung screening, and head angiography (CTA). Approach . There were 39 participants enrolled in this study, each received a UHR-PCD and an energy integrating detector (EID) CT scan. The developed CNN noise reduction technique uses image-based noise insertion and UHR-PCD-CT images to train a U-Net via supervised learning. For each application, 13 patient scans were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) and allocated into training, validation, and testing datasets (9:1:3). The subtraction of FBP and IR images resulted in approximately noise-only images. The 5-slice average of IR produced a thick reference image. The CNN training input consisted of thick reference images with reinsertion of spatially decoupled noise-only images. The training target consisted of the corresponding thick reference images without noise insertion. Performance was evaluated based on difference images, line profiles, noise measurements, nonlinear perturbation assessment, and radiologist visual assessment. UHR-PCD-CT images were compared with EID images (clinical standard). Main results. Up to 89% noise reduction was achieved using the proposed CNN. Nonlinear perturbation assessment indicated reasonable retention of 1 mm radius and 1000 HU contrast signals (>80% for skeletal survey and head CTA, >50% for lung screening). A contour plot indicated reduced retention for small-radius and low contrast perturbations. Radiologists preferred CNN over IR for UHR-PCD-CT noise reduction. Additionally, UHR-PCD-CT with CNN was preferred over standard resolution EID-CT images. Significance. CT images reconstructed with very sharp kernels and/or thin sections suffer from increased image noise. Deep learning noise reduction can be used to offset noise level and increase utility of UHR-PCD-CT images.

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.

AbstractPurposeTo demonstrate the feasibility of simultaneous dual‐contrast imaging in a large animal using a newly developed dual‐source energy‐integrating detector (EID)‐based multi‐energy computed tomography (MECT) system.MethodsTwo imaging tasks that may have potential clinical applications were investigated: head/neck (HN) CT angiography (CTA)/CT venography (CTV) with iodine and gadolinium, and small bowel imaging with iodine and bismuth in domestic swine. Dual‐source X‐ray beam configurations of 70 kV + Au120/Sn120 kV and 70 kV + Au140/Sn140 kV were used for the HN‐CTA/CTV and small bowel imaging studies, respectively. A test bolus scan was performed for each study. The regions of interest (ROIs) in the carotid artery and jugular vein for HN‐CTA/CTV imaging and abdominal aorta for small bowel imaging were used to determine the time‐attenuation curves, based on which the timing for contrast injection and the CT scan was determined. In the HN‐CTA/CTV study, an MECT scan was performed at the time point corresponding to the optimal arterial enhancement by iodine and the optimal venous enhancement by gadolinium. In the small bowel imaging study, an MECT scan was performed at the optimal time point to simultaneously capture the mesenteric arterial enhancement of iodine and the enteric enhancement of bismuth. Image‐based material decomposition was performed to decompose different materials for each study. To quantitatively characterize contrast material separation and misclassification, two ROIs on left common carotid artery and left internal jugular vein in HN‐CTA/CTV imaging and three ROIs on superior mesenteric artery, ileal lumen, and collapsed ileum (ileal wall) in small bowel imaging were placed to measure the mean concentration values and the standard deviations.ResultsIn the HN‐CTA/CTV study, common carotid arteries containing iodine and internal/external jugular veins containing gadolinium were clearly delineated from each other. Fine vessels such as cephalic veins and branches of external jugular veins were noticeable but clear visualization was hindered by image noise in gadolinium‐specific (CTV) images, as reviewed by a neuroradiologist. In the small bowel imaging study, the mesenteric arteries and collapsed bowel wall containing iodine and the small bowel loops containing bismuth were clearly distinctive from each other in the iodine‐ and bismuth‐specific images after material decomposition, as reviewed by an abdominal radiologist. Quantitative analyses showed that the misclassifications between the two contrast materials were less than 1.7 and 0.1 mg/ml for CTA/CTV and small bowel imaging studies, respectively.ConclusionsFeasibility of simultaneous CTA/CTV imaging in head and neck with iodine and gadolinium and simultaneous imaging of arterial and enteric phases of small bowel with iodine and bismuth, using a dual‐source EID‐MECT system, was demonstrated in a swine study. Compared to iodine and gadolinium in CTA/CTV, better delineation and classification of iodine and bismuth in small bowel imaging were achieved mainly due to wider separation between the corresponding two K‐edge energies.

AbstractPurposeConventional model observers (MO) in CT are often limited to a uniform background or varying background that is random and can be modeled in an analytical form. It is unclear if these conventional MOs can be readily generalized to predict human observer performance in clinical CT tasks that involve realistic anatomical background. Deep‐learning‐based model observers (DL‐MO) have recently been developed, but have not been validated for challenging low contrast diagnostic tasks in abdominal CT. We consequently sought to validate a DL‐MO for a low‐contrast hepatic metastases localization task.MethodsWe adapted our recently developed DL‐MO framework for the liver metastases localization task. Our previously‐validated projection‐domain lesion‐/noise‐insertion techniques were used to synthesize realistic positive and low‐dose abdominal CT exams, using the archived patient projection data. Ten experimental conditions were generated, which involved different lesion sizes/contrasts, radiation dose levels, and image reconstruction types. Each condition included 100 trials generated from a patient cohort of 7 cases. Each trial was presented as liver image patches (160×160×5 voxels). The DL‐MO performance was calculated for each condition and was compared with human observer performance, which was obtained by three sub‐specialized radiologists in an observer study. The performance of DL‐MO and radiologists was gauged by the area under localization receiver‐operating‐characteristic curves. The generalization performance of the DL‐MO was estimated with the repeated twofold cross‐validation method over the same set of trials used in the human observer study. A multi‐slice Channelized Hoteling Observers (CHO) was compared with the DL‐MO across the same experimental conditions.ResultsThe performance of DL‐MO was highly correlated to that of radiologists (Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.987; 95% CI: [0.942, 0.997]). The performance level of DL‐MO was comparable to that of the grouped radiologists, that is, the mean performance difference was ‐3.3%. The CHO performance was poorer than the grouped radiologist performance, before internal noise could be added. The correlation between CHO and radiologists was weaker (Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.812, and 95% CI: [0.378, 0.955]), and the corresponding performance bias (‐29.5%) was statistically significant.ConclusionThe presented study demonstrated the potential of using the DL‐MO for image quality assessment in patient abdominal CT tasks.

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.