Comparison of Several Methods for Automated Noise Measurements in Computed Tomography

Authors

  • Fitri Octaviany  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl Soedarto SH, Tembalang, Semarang, 50275, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Choirul Anam  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl Soedarto SH, Tembalang, Semarang, 50275, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Heri Sutanto  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl Soedarto SH, Tembalang, Semarang, 50275, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Ariij Naufal  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl Soedarto SH, Tembalang, Semarang, 50275, Central Java, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org//10.32628/IJSRST229680

Keywords:

CT scan, noise, automated noise, IndoQCT, tube voltage

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the methods of automated noise measurement at the polyester resin (PESR) phantom images and clinical abdominal images. Method: The PESR phantom was scanned with a Siemens SOMATOM Emotion 6 CT scanner for various tube voltages, i.e., 80, 110, and 130 kV. Noises from images of the PESR phantom and 27 clinical abdominal scans were automatically measured. The methods used for automatic measurements were methods proposed by Christianson et al (2015), Malkus et al (2017), and Anam et al (2019), respectively. Results: Three methods of automatic noise measurements can distinguish the noise of the three tube voltages. The measured noises from three methods decrease with increasing tube voltage. It can also be seen that the highest noise in PESR phantom images is Christianson et al (2015) method, and the smallest noise is Malkus et al (2017) method. The highest noise in clinical abdominal images is Malkus et al (2017) method, and the smallest noise is Anam et al (2019) method. Conclusion: The algorithms to automatically measure noises proposed by Christianson et al (2015), Malkus et al (2017), and Anam et al (2019) have been compared. Although the three methods can distinguish noise for different exposure factors, the magnitude of the noise from the three methods can vary. Until now there is no standard for automatic noise determination.

References

  1. Lampignano J & Kendrick LE. Bontrager's Textbook of Radiographic Positioning and Related Anatomy 9th Edition. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017.
  2. Vega-Woo N. Evaluation of radiation exposure from computed tomography of the head. J Radiol Nursing. 2018;37(4):260-267.
  3. Roa AM, Andersen HK, Martinsen AC. CT image quality over time: comparison of image quality for six different CT scanners over a six-year period. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(2):4972.
  4. Okada DR, & Blankstein R. Digital image processing for medical applications. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2009;52(4):617-623.
  5. Zarb F, Rainford L, & McEntee MF. Image quality assessment tools for optimization of CT images. Radiography. 2010;16(2):147-153.
  6. Verdun FR, Meuli RA, Bucher G, Noel A, Stines J, Schnyder P, & Valley JF. Dose and image quality characterization of CT units. Radiat Prot Dosim. 200;90(1-2):193-196
  7. Seeram E. Computed Tomography-E-Book: Physical Principles, Clinical Applications, and Quality Control. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015.
  8. Goldman LW. Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality. J Nucl Med Technol. 2007;35(4):213-228.
  9. Bushberg JT & Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
  10. Khoramian D, Sistani S, Firouzjah RA. Assessment and comparison of radiation dose and image quality in multi-detector CT scanners in non-contrast head and neck examinations. Pol J Radiol. 2019;84:e61-e67.
  11. Solomon JB, Li X, Samei E. Relating noise to image quality indicators in CT examinations with tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(3):592-600.
  12. Primak AN, McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Zhang J, Fletcher JG. Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT. Radiographics. 2006;26(6):1785-1794.
  13. Kamezawa H, Arimura H, Shirieda K, Kameda N, Ohki M. Feasibility of patient dose reduction based on various noise suppression filters for cone-beam computed tomography in an image-guided patient positioning system. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(9):3609-3636.
  14. Dodge CT, Tamm EP, Cody DD, et al. Performance evaluation of iterative reconstruction algorithms for achieving CT radiation dose reduction - a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(2):511-531.
  15. Hussain FA, Mail N, Shamy AM, Suliman A, Saoudi A. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of radiation dose and image quality of computed tomography images using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(3):419-432.
  16. Christianson O, Winslow J, Frush DP, Samei E. Automated Technique to Measure Noise in Clinical CT Examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(1):W93-W99.
  17. Malkus A, Szczykutowicz TP. A method to extract image noise level from patient images in CT. Med Phys. 2017;44(6):2173-2184.
  18. Anam C, Budi WS, Adi K, et al. Assessment of patient dose and noise level of clinical CT images: automated measurements. J Radiol Prot. 2019;39(3):783-793.
  19. Anam C, Arif I, Haryanto F, et al. An Improved Method of Automated Noise Measurement System in CT Images. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2021;11(2):163-174.
  20. Anam C, Naufal A, Fujibuchi T, Matsubara K, Dougherty G. Automated development of the contrast-detail curve based on statistical low-contrast detectability in CT images. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23(9):e13719.
  21. Hilmawati R, Sutanto H, Anam C, Arifin Z, Asiah RH, Soedarsono JW. Development of a head CT dose index (CTDI) phantom based on polyester resin and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP): a preliminary study. J Radiol Prot. 2020;40(2):544-553.
  22. Asiah R, Sutanto H, Anam C, Arifin Z, Bahrudin B, & Hilmawati, R. Development of in-house head computed tomography dose index phantoms based on polyester-resin materials. Iran J Med Phys. 2021;18(4):255-262.
  23. Dio P, Anam C, Hidayanto E, et al. Evaluation of radiation dose accuracy calculated using IndoseCT software with direct measurement on polyester-resin phantoms. Radiat Phys Chem. 2022;201:110473
  24. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, & Arif I. New noise reduction method for reducing CT scan dose: Combining Wiener filtering and edge detection algorithm. In AIP Conference Proceedings 2015;1677(1):040004
  25. Choi HR, Kim RE, Heo CW, Kim CW, Yoo MS, & Lee Y. Optimization of dose and image quality using self-produced phantom with various diameters in pediatric abdominal CT scan. Optik. 2018;168:54-60.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-30

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

[1]
Fitri Octaviany, Choirul Anam, Heri Sutanto, Ariij Naufal, " Comparison of Several Methods for Automated Noise Measurements in Computed Tomography, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp.566-573, November-December-2022. Available at doi : https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST229680