Fan M, Zhou Z, Wellinghoff J, McCollough CH, Yu L. Low-contrast detectability of photon-counting-detector CT at different scan modes and image types in comparison with energy-integrating-detector CT.
J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2024;
11:S12803. [PMID:
38799271 PMCID:
PMC11116128 DOI:
10.1117/1.jmi.11.s1.s12803]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Revised: 04/08/2024] [Accepted: 04/29/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose
We aim to compare the low-contrast detectability of a clinical whole-body photon-counting-detector (PCD)-CT at different scan modes and image types with an energy-integrating-detector (EID)-CT.
Approach
We used a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) previously optimized for quality control purposes. An American College of Radiology CT accreditation phantom was scanned on both PCD-CT and EID-CT with 10 phantom positionings. For PCD-CT, images were generated using two scan modes, standard resolution (SR) and ultra-high-resolution (UHR); two image types, virtual monochromatic images at 70 keV and low-energy threshold (T3D); both filtered-back-projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) reconstruction methods; and three reconstruction kernels. For each positioning, three repeated scans were acquired for each scan mode, image type, and CTDIvol of 6, 12, and 24 mGy. For EID-CT, images acquired from scans (10 positionings × 3 repeats × 3 doses) were reconstructed using the closest counterpart FBP and IR kernels. CHO was applied to calculate the index of detectability (d ' ) on both scanners.
Results
With the smooth Br44 kernel, the d ' of UHR was mostly comparable with that of the SR mode (difference: -11.4% to 8.3%, p = 0.020 to 0.956), and the T3D images had a higher d ' (difference: 0.7% to 25.6%) than 70 keV images on PCD-CT. Compared with the EID-CT, UHR-T3D of PCD-CT had non-inferior d ' (difference: -2.7% to 12.9%) with IR and non-superior d ' (difference: 0.8% to 11.2%) with FBP using the Br44 kernel. PCD-CT produced higher d ' than EID-CT by 61.8% to 247.1% with the sharper reconstruction kernels.
Conclusions
The comparison between PCD-CT and EID-CT was significantly influenced by the reconstruction method and kernel. With a smooth kernel that is typically used in low-contrast detection tasks, the PCD-CT demonstrated low-contrast detectability that was comparable to EID-CT with IR and showed no superiority when using FBP. With the use of sharper kernels, the PCD-CT significantly outperformed EID-CT in low-contrast detectability.
Collapse