Giraldo, Juan Carlos Ramírez

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.

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.