Winfree, Timothy

AbstractBackgroundInserting noise into existing patient projection data to simulate lower‐radiation‐dose exams has been frequently used in traditional energy‐integrating‐detector (EID)‐CT to optimize radiation dose in clinical protocols and to generate paired images for training deep‐learning‐based reconstruction and noise reduction methods. Recent introduction of photon counting detector CT (PCD‐CT) also requires such a method to accomplish these tasks. However, clinical PCD‐CT scanners often restrict the users access to the raw count data, exporting only the preprocessed, log‐normalized sinogram. Therefore, it remains a challenge to employ projection domain noise insertion algorithms on PCD‐CT.PurposeTo develop and validate a projection domain noise insertion algorithm for PCD‐CT that does not require access to the raw count data.Materials and MethodsA projection‐domain noise model developed originally for EID‐CT was adapted for PCD‐CT. This model requires, as input, a map of the incident number of photons at each detector pixel when no object is in the beam. To obtain the map of incident number of photons, air scans were acquired on a PCD‐CT scanner, then the noise equivalent photon number (NEPN) was calculated from the variance in the log normalized projection data of each scan. Additional air scans were acquired at various mA settings to investigate the impact of pulse pileup on the linearity of NEPN measurement. To validate the noise insertion algorithm, Noise Power Spectra (NPS) were generated from a 30 cm water tank scan and used to compare the noise texture and noise level of measured and simulated half dose and quarter dose images. An anthropomorphic thorax phantom was scanned with automatic exposure control, and noise levels at different slice locations were compared between simulated and measured half dose and quarter dose images. Spectral correlation between energy thresholds T1 and T2, and energy bins, B1 and B2, was compared between simulated and measured data across a wide range of tube current. Additionally, noise insertion was performed on a clinical patient case for qualitative assessment.ResultsThe NPS generated from simulated low dose water tank images showed similar shape and amplitude to that generated from the measured low dose images, differing by a maximum of 5.0% for half dose (HD) T1 images, 6.3% for HD T2 images, 4.1% for quarter dose (QD) T1 images, and 6.1% for QD T2 images. Noise versus slice measurements of the lung phantom showed comparable results between measured and simulated low dose images, with root mean square percent errors of 5.9%, 5.4%, 5.0%, and 4.6% for QD T1, HD T1, QD T2, and HD T2, respectively. NEPN measurements in air were linear up until 112 mA, after which pulse pileup effects significantly distort the air scan NEPN profile. Spectral correlation between T1 and T2 in simulation agreed well with that in the measured data in typical dose ranges.ConclusionsA projection‐domain noise insertion algorithm was developed and validated for PCD‐CT to synthesize low‐dose images from existing scans. It can be used for optimizing scanning protocols and generating paired images for training deep‐learning‐based methods.

AbstractBackgroundThe feasibility of oral dark contrast media is under exploration in abdominal computed tomography (CT) applications. One of the experimental contrast media in this class is dark borosilicate contrast media (DBCM), which has a CT attenuation lower than that of intra‐abdominal fat.PurposeTo evaluate the performances of DBCM using single‐ and multi‐energy CT imaging on a clinical photon‐counting‐detector CT (PCD‐CT).MethodsFive vials, three with iodinated contrast agent (5, 10, and 20 mg/mL; Omnipaque 350) and two with DBCM (6% and 12%; Nextrast, Inc.), and one solid‐water rod (neutral contrast agent) were inserted into two multi‐energy CT phantoms, and scanned on a clinical PCD‐CT system (NAEOTOM Alpha) at 90, 120, 140, Sn100, and Sn140 kV (Sn: tin filter) in multi‐energy mode. CARE keV IQ level was 180 (CTDIvol: 3.0 and 12.0 mGy for the small and large phantoms, respectively). Low‐energy threshold images were reconstructed with a quantitative kernel (Qr40, iterative reconstruction strength 2) and slice thickness/increment of 2.0/2.0 mm. Virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) were reconstructed from 40 to 140 keV at 10 keV increments. On all images, average CT numbers for each vial/rod were measured using circular region‐of‐interests and averaged over eight slices. The contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) of iodine (5 mg/mL) against DBCM was calculated and plotted against tube potential and VMI energy level, and compared to the CNR of iodine against water. Similar analyses were performed on iodine maps and VNC images derived from the multi‐energy scan at 120 kV.ResultsWith increasing kV or VMI keV, the negative HU of DBCM decreased only slightly, whereas the positive HU of iodine decreased across all contrast concentrations and phantom sizes. CT numbers for DBCM decreased from −178.5 ± 9.6 to −194.4 ± 6.3 HU (small phantom) and from −181.7 ± 15.7 to −192.1 ± 11.9 HU (large phantom) for DBCM‐12% from 90 to Sn140 kV; on VMIs, the CT numbers for DBCM decreased minimally from −147.1 ± 15.7 to −185.1 ± 9.2 HU (small phantom) and −158.8 ± 28.6 to −188.9 ± 14.7 HU (large phantom) from 40 to 70 keV, but remained stable from 80 to 140 keV. The highest iodine CNR against DBCM in low‐energy threshold images was seen at 90 or Sn140 kV for the small phantom, whereas all CNR values from low‐energy threshold images for the large phantom were comparable. The CNR values of iodine against DBCM computed on VMIs were highest at 40 or 70 keV depending on iodine and DBCM concentrations. The CNR values of iodine against DBCM were consistently higher than iodine to water (up to 460% higher dependent on energy level). Further, the CNR of iodine compared to DBCM is less affected by VMI energy level than the identical comparison between iodine and water: CNR values at 140 keV were reduced by 46.6% (small phantom) or 42.6% (large phantom) compared to 40 keV; CNR values for iodine compared to water were reduced by 86.3% and 83.8% for similar phantom sizes, respectively. Compared to 70 keV VMI, the iodine CNR against DBCM was 13%–79% lower on iodine maps and VNC.ConclusionsWhen evaluated at different tube potentials and VMI energy levels using a clinical PCD‐CT system, DBCM showed consistently higher CNR compared to iodine versus water (a neutral contrast).