Kofler, James M.

Abstract Background Computed tomography (CT) is an essential imaging modality for disease diagnosis, treatment efficacy, and image‐based guidance of various medical procedures. The locally deposited radiation dose in tissues, as estimated by the computed tomography dose index (CTDI), can vary considerably across exposures delivered by CT scanners from different vendors, even if the scans are performed using similar technique factors, such as tube potential and tube current. The volumetric CTDI (CTDI vol ) is a common dose metric that reports an average radiation dose (in mGy) delivered to a specific volume within a test phantom. The CTDI vol is important in dosimetry applications as the organ absorbed dose within the patient has been shown to scale in near‐linear proportion, creating a basis for comparing organ doses across different scan protocols and scanner models. Purpose To develop a database of tube current‐time product (mAs) normalized CTDI vol values for currently utilized CT scanner models for each of the four primary CT vendors for use in the MIRDct organ dosimetry software available at MIRDsoft.org. This data forms the basis of the MIRDct code, which reports organ doses across a range of computational phantoms based upon axial organ dose coefficient libraries generated through Monte Carlo radiation transport for a reference CT scanner. Organ doses delivered by alternate CT scanner vendors and models may then be reported using ratios of normalized CTDI vol values under similar technique factors. Methods Scanners were selected from four major CT manufacturers: Philips Healthcare, GE Healthcare, Canon Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers. Technique parameters were also selected for each scanner that closely matched values used in the generation of an equivalent CT source term (small to large bowtie filters; 80–140‐kVp tube voltage; and 10‐mm to 40‐mm beam collimation). For each scanner chosen, the appropriate technique factors and protocols were selected, and the console‐reported CTDI vol values were recorded and normalized to a set value of 100 mAs. The normalized CTDI vol data collected for use within the MIRDct code were analyzed for noticeable patterns, features, and trends, and were compared to similar normalized CTDI vol datasets used within the National Cancer Institute NCICT software and the Virtual Phantoms, Inc. VirtualDose software. Results For all given CT scanner and technique factor combinations, there was strong agreement in normalized CTDI vol values across all three codes: between 0% and 12% difference for the compared scanners. Ratios of CTDI vol values for various CT scanner vendors and models to the corresponding CTDI vol values for the MIRDct reference scanner (Cannon Aquilion One Genesis) were also compared on the basis of either the 16‐cm head PMMA phantom or the 32‐cm body PMMA phantom. The mean quotient of these normalized CTDI vol ratios (head ratios to body ratios) was found to be approximately 1.06, and thus either ratio may be applied in reporting patient organ dose by MIRDct. Conclusions A database of normalized CTDI vol (mGy/100 mAs) was created for 17 models of CT scanners from four manufacturers at varying tube potentials, collimations, x‐ray bowtie filters, and phantom sizes for use in the MIRDct software.

Purpose: To investigate the potential for decreasing radiation dose when utilizing a third-generation vs second-generation dual-source dual-energy CT (dsDECT) scanner, while maintaining diagnostic image quality and acceptable image noise. Materials and Methods : Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent dsDECT for clinical suspicion of urolithiasis from October 2, 2017, to September 5, 2018. Patient demographics, body mass index, abdominal diameter, scanning parameters, and CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) were recorded. Image quality was assessed by measuring the attenuation and standard deviation (SD) regions of interest in the aorta and in the bladder. Image noise was determined by averaging the SD at both levels. Patients were excluded if they had not undergone both third- and second-generation dual-energy CT (DECT), time between DECT was more than 2 years, or scan parameters were outside the standard protocol. Results: A total of 117 patients met the inclusion criteria. Examinations performed on a third-generation DECT had an average CTDIvol 12.3 mGy, while examinations performed on a second-generation DECT had an average CTDIvol 13.3 mGy ( p < 0.001). Average image noise was significantly lower for the third-generation DECT (SD = 10.3) compared with the second-generation DECT (SD = 13.9) ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: The third-generation dsDECT scanners can simultaneously decrease patient radiation dose and decrease image noise compared with second-generation DECT. These reductions in radiation exposure can be particularly important in patients with urinary stone disease who often require repeated imaging to evaluate for stone development and recurrence as well as treatment assessment.

AbstractObjectivesBoth projection and dual‐energy (DE)‐based methods have been used for metal artifact reduction (MAR) in CT. The two methods can also be combined. The purpose of this work was to evaluate these three MAR methods using phantom experiments for five types of metal implants.Materials and MethodsFive phantoms representing spine, dental, hip, shoulder, and knee were constructed with metal implants. These phantoms were scanned using both single‐energy (SE) and DE protocols with matched radiation output. The SE data were processed using a projection‐based MAR (iMAR, Siemens) algorithm, while the DE data were processed to generate virtual monochromatic images at high keV (Mono+, Siemens). In addition, the DE images after iMAR were used to generate Mono+ images (DE iMAR Mono+). Artifacts were quantitatively evaluated using CT numbers at different regions of interest. Iodine contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) was evaluated in the spine phantom. Three musculoskeletal radiologists and two neuro‐radiologists independently ranked the artifact reduction.ResultsThe DE Mono+ at high keV resulted in reduced artifacts but also lower iodine CNR. The iMAR method alone caused missing tissue artifacts in dental phantom. DE iMAR Mono+ caused wrong CT numbers in close proximity to the metal prostheses in knee and hip phantoms. All musculoskeletal radiologists ranked SE iMAR > DE iMAR Mono+ > DE Mono+ for knee and hip, while DE iMAR Mono+ > SE iMAR > DE Mono+ for shoulder. Both neuro‐radiologists ranked DE iMAR Mono+ > DE Mono+ > SE iMAR for spine and DE Mono+ > DE iMAR Mono+ > SE iMAR for dental.ConclusionsThe SE iMAR was the best choice for the hip and knee prostheses, while DE Mono+ at high keV was best for dental implants and DE iMAR Mono+ was best for spine and shoulder prostheses. Artifacts were also introduced by MAR algorithms.

PurposeModel observers have been successfully developed and used to assess the quality of static 2D CT images. However, radiologists typically read images by paging through multiple 2D slices (i.e., multislice reading). The purpose of this study was to correlate human and model observer performance in a low‐contrast detection task performed using both 2D and multislice reading, and to determine if the 2D model observer still correlate well with human observer performance in multislice reading.MethodsA phantom containing 18 low‐contrast spheres (6 sizes × 3 contrast levels) was scanned on a 192‐slice CT scanner at five dose levels (CTDIvol = 27, 13.5, 6.8, 3.4, and 1.7 mGy), each repeated 100 times. Images were reconstructed using both filtered‐backprojection (FBP) and an iterative reconstruction (IR) method (ADMIRE, Siemens). A 3D volume of interest (VOI) around each sphere was extracted and placed side‐by‐side with a signal‐absent VOI to create a 2‐alternative forced choice (2AFC) trial. Sixteen 2AFC studies were generated, each with 100 trials, to evaluate the impact of radiation dose, lesion size and contrast, and reconstruction methods on object detection. In total, 1600 trials were presented to both model and human observers. Three medical physicists acted as human observers and were allowed to page through the 3D volumes to make a decision for each 2AFC trial. The human observer performance was compared with the performance of a multislice channelized Hotelling observer (CHO_MS), which integrates multislice image data, and with the performance of previously validated CHO, which operates on static 2D images (CHO_2D). For comparison, the same 16 2AFC studies were also performed in a 2D viewing mode by the human observers and compared with the multislice viewing performance and the two CHO models.ResultsHuman observer performance was well correlated with the CHO_2D performance in the 2D viewing mode [Pearson product‐moment correlation coefficient R = 0.972, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.919 to 0.990] and with the CHO_MS performance in the multislice viewing mode (R = 0.952, 95% CI: 0.865 to 0.984). The CHO_2D performance, calculated from the 2D viewing mode, also had a strong correlation with human observer performance in the multislice viewing mode (R = 0.957, 95% CI: 879 to 0.985). Human observer performance varied between the multislice and 2D modes. One reader performed better in the multislice mode (P = 0.013); whereas the other two readers showed no significant difference between the two viewing modes (P = 0.057 and P = 0.38).ConclusionsA 2D CHO model is highly correlated with human observer performance in detecting spherical low contrast objects in multislice viewing of CT images. This finding provides some evidence for the use of a simpler, 2D CHO to assess image quality in clinically relevant CT tasks where multislice viewing is used.

Much work has been done on ultrasound phantoms foe biopsy and anatomic training of physicians and sonographers. Artifacts observed during scans in vivo also have been described. The authors' purpose in this article is to describe the construction and perdormance of phantoms designed to demonstrate ultrasound image artifacts for teaching purposes. Phantom images exhibiting ringdown, range errors, reverberation, and multipath artifacts produced by scanning intrauterine devices, shotgun pellets, and other objects are illustrated.