Flohr, Thomas

Abstract Objectives To assess quantitative and qualitative image characteristics in phantoms and patients using a simultaneous ultra-high resolution (UHR) and multi-energy (ME) dual-source cardiac scan mode in a photon counting detector (PCD) CT scanner. Methods UHR-ME cardiac scans were performed to determine the spatial resolution and multi-energy performance. UHR reconstructions were completed to measure transverse and axial spatial resolution in terms of modulation transfer function (MTF) and slice sensitivity profile (SSP). Virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs), virtual non-contrast (VNC) images, and iodine concentration images were created using moderately sharp reconstruction kernels to assess ME performance. With IRB approval, coronary CT angiograms were acquired in 19 patients using the UHR-ME mode, from which iodine contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured. Various ME post-processing tasks were performed to show the utility of the spectral capabilities. Results VMIs showed a mean CT number error of 6.0%, while iodine accuracy was 0.71 mg/cc (root-mean-square-error). Spatial resolution matched well with a standard UHR mode. Patient images showed a trend of higher CNR at lower keV, while higher keV images showed decreased calcium blooming. ME techniques to separate iodine and calcium were used successfully. Conclusions The combination of UHR-ME cardiac mode retains UHR image quality while providing flexibility for ME post-processing. Advances in knowledge Cardiac UHR-ME PCD-CT scanning offers simultaneous UHR and ME imaging without loss of spatial or temporal resolution or quantitative accuracy.

Abstract We report a comprehensive evaluation of a full field-of-view (FOV) photon-counting detector (PCD) computed tomography (CT) system using phantoms, and qualitatively assess image quality in patient examples. A whole-body PCD-CT system with 50 cm FOV, 5.76 cm z-detector coverage and two acquisition modes (standard: 144 × 0.4 mm collimation and ultra-high resolution (UHR): 120 × 0.2 mm collimation) was used in this study. Phantoms were scanned to assess image uniformity, CT number accuracy, noise power spectrum, spatial resolution, material decomposition and virtual monoenergetic imaging (VMI) performance. Four patients were scanned on the PCD-CT system with matched or lower radiation dose than their prior clinical CT scans performed using energy-integrating detector (EID) CT, and the potential clinical impact of PCD-CT was qualitatively evaluated. Phantom results showed water CT numbers within ±5 HU, and image uniformity measured between peripheral and central regions-of-interests to be within ±5 HU. For the UHR mode using a dedicated sharp kernel, the cut-off spatial frequency was 40 line-pairs cm −1 , which corresponds to a 125 μ m limiting in-plane spatial resolution. The full-width-at-half-maximum for the section sensitivity profile was 0.33 mm for the smallest slice thickness (0.2 mm) using the UHR mode. Material decomposition in a multi-energy CT phantom showed accurate material classification, with a root-mean-squared-error of 0.3 mg cc −1 for iodine concentrations (2–15 mg cc −1 ) and 14.2 mg cc −1 for hydroxyapatite concentrations (200 and 400 mg cc −1 ). The average percent error for CT numbers corresponding to the iodine concentrations in VMI (40–70 keV) was 2.75%. Patient PCD-CT images demonstrated better delineation of anatomy for chest and temporal bone exams performed with the UHR mode, which allowed the use of very sharp kernels not possible with EID-CT. VMI and virtual non-contrast images generated from a patient head CT angiography exam using the standard acquisition mode demonstrated the multi-energy capability of the PCD-CT system.

PurposeMulti‐energy computed tomography (MECT) has a great potential to enable many novel clinical applications such as simultaneous multi‐contrast imaging. The purpose of this study was to implement triple‐beam MECT on a traditional energy‐integrating‐detector (EID) CT platform (EID‐MECT).MethodsThis was accomplished by mounting a z‐axis split‐filter (0.05 mm Au, 0.6 mm Sn) on Tube A of a dual‐source EID CT scanner. With the two split x‐ray beams from Tube A and the third beam from Tube B, three beams with different x‐ray spectra can be simultaneously acquired. With Tube B operated at 70 or 80 kV and Tube A at 120 or 140 kV, four different triple‐beam configurations were calibrated for MECT measurements: 70/Au120/Sn120, 80/Au120/Sn120, 70/Au140/Sn140, and 80/Au140/Sn140 kV. Iodine (I), gadolinium (Gd), bismuth (Bi) samples, and their mixtures were prepared for 2 three‐material‐decomposition tasks and 1 four‐material‐decomposition task. For each task, samples were placed in a water phantom and scanned using each of the four triple‐beam configurations. For comparison, the same phantom was also scanned using three other dual‐energy CT (DECT) or MECT technologies: twin‐beam DECT (TB‐DECT), dual‐source DECT (DS‐DECT), and photon‐counting‐detector CT (PCD‐CT), all with optimal x‐ray spectrum settings and at equal volume CT dose index (CTDIvol). The phantom for four‐material decomposition (I/Gd/Bi/Water imaging) was scanned using the PCD‐CT only (140 kV with 25, 50, 75, and 90 keV). Image‐based material decomposition was performed to acquire material‐specific images, on which the mean basis material concentrations and noise levels were measured and compared across all triple‐beam configurations in EID‐MECT and various DECT/MECT systems.ResultsThe optimal triple‐beam configuration was task‐dependent with 70/Au120/Sn120, 70/Au140/Sn140, and 70/Au120/Sn120 kV for I/Gd/Water, I/Bi/Water, and I/Gd/Bi/Water material decomposition tasks, respectively. At equal radiation dose level, EID‐MECT provided comparable or better quantification accuracy in material‐specific images for all three material decomposition tasks, compared to EID‐based DECT and PCD‐CT systems. In terms of noise level comparison, EID‐MECT‐derived material‐specific images showed lower noise levels than TB‐DECT and DS‐DECT, but slightly higher than that from PCD‐CT in I/Gd/Water imaging. For I/Bi/Water imaging, EID‐MECT showed a comparable noise level to DS‐DECT, and a much lower noise level than TB‐DECT and PCD‐CT in all material‐specific images. For the four‐material decomposition task involving I/Gd/Bi/Water, the bismuth‐specific image derived from EID‐MECT was slightly noisier, but both iodine‐ and gadolinium‐specific images showed much lower noise levels in comparison to PCD‐CT.ConclusionsFor the first time, an EID‐based MECT system that can simultaneously acquire three x‐ray spectra measurements was implemented on a clinical scanner, which demonstrated comparable or better imaging performance than existing DECT and MECT systems.

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.