Comparison of MTFs Measured using IndoQCT and ImQuest Software on GE CT Phantom Images

Authors

  • Nofrianto Nofrianto  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Choirul Anam  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Eko Hidayanto  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Ariij Naufal  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST523103156

Keywords:

Spatial Resolution, Modulation Transfer Function, IndoQCT, ImQuest

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to compare the modulation transfer function (MTF) measured using IndoQCT and ImQuest software on GE CT phantom images with variations of slice thickness and reconstruction filter. Method: This study compared MTFs measured using two software (i.e., IndoQCT and ImQuest software) on GE CT phantom images. IndoQCT implemented automatic region of interest (ROI) determination, while ImQuest used manual ROI determination. Both software analysed images with three variations of slice thickness (i.e., 2.5, 5, and 10 mm) and reconstruction filter (i.e., standard, soft tissue, chest, and bone filters). Results: IndoQCT provides automatic ROI selection and produces stable MTF curves, while ImQuest provides manual ROI selection and produces more fluctuating MTF curves. In slice thickness variation, IndoQCT showed that different slice thickness did not significantly affect spatial resolution as suggested, while ImQuest showed significant differences in spatial resolution for thickest slice thickness. In filter variation, IndoQCT produced high spatial resolution value in bone filter, while ImQuest produced the lower spatial resolution value. Overall, both software showed MTF differences within 15%, except in certain conditions, for example on a slice thickness of 10 mm. Conclusions: We have compared MTFs measured using IndoQCT and ImQuest software. Both software can be used to measure MTFs on the GE phantom images with relatively accurate results. IndoQCT generally produces higher MTF values than those from ImQuest. However, the difference MTF is not statistically significant. This study found that at 10 mm slice thickness, ImQuest produced very low MTF, while IndoQCT produced stable results for different slice thicknesses and reconstruction filters.

References

  1. Raman SP, Mahesh M, Blasko R v., Fishman EK. CT scan parameters and radiation dose: Practical advice for radiologists. Journal of the American College of Radiology 2013;10:840–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.05.032.
  2. Watanabe H, Honda E, Tetsumura A, Kurabayashi T. A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a cone-beam CT for dental use. Eur J Radiol 2011;77:397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.023.
  3. Camera L, Pezzullo F, Acampora A, Liuzzi R, Rispo A, Nardone OM, et al. Multi-detector CT enterography in active inflammatory bowel disease: Image quality and diagnostic efficacy of a low-radiation high contrast protocol. Clin Imaging 2019;58:27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.06.007.
  4. Williams MB, Krupinski EA, Strauss KJ, Breeden WK, Rzeszotarski MS, Applegate K, et al. Digital Radiography Image Quality: Image Acquisition. Journal of the American College of Radiology 2007;4:371–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.02.002.
  5. Verdun FR, Racine D, Ott JG, Tapiovaara MJ, Toroi P, Bochud FO, et al. Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers. Physica Medica 2015;31:823–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.007.
  6. Davis AT, Palmer AL, Pani S, Nisbet A. Assessment of the variation in CT scanner performance (image quality and Hounsfield units) with scan parameters, for image optimisation in radiotherapy treatment planning. Physica Medica 2018;45:198–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.11.036.
  7. Schuijf JD, Lima JAC, Boedeker KL, Takagi H, Tanaka R, Yoshioka K, et al. CT imaging with ultra-high-resolution: Opportunities for cardiovascular imaging in clinical practice. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2022;16:388–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2022.02.003.
  8. Kayugawa A, Ohkubo M, Wada S. Accurate determination of ct point-spread-function with high precision. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013;14:216–26. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.3905.
  9. Kappadath SC. Effects of voxel size and iterative reconstruction parameters on the spatial resolution of 99mTc SPECT/CT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011;12:210–20. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i4.3459.
  10. Gopal A, Samant SS. Use of a line-pair resolution phantom for comprehensive quality assurance of electronic portal imaging devices based on fundamental imaging metrics. Med Phys 2009;36:2006–15. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3099559.
  11. Mikš A, Pokorný P. Edge spread function of Talbot phenomenon. Optik (Stuttg) 2016;127:8065–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2016.06.003.
  12. Saiga R, Takeuchi A, Uesugi K, Terada Y, Suzuki Y, Mizutani R. Method for estimating modulation transfer function from sample images. Micron 2018;105:64–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2017.11.009.
  13. Suljic A, Tomse P, Jensterle L, Skrk D. The impact of reconstruction algorithms and time of flight information on PET/CT image quality. Radiol Oncol 2015;49:227–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2015-0014.
  14. Schneiders NJ, Bushong SC. Computer assisted MTF determination in CT. Med Phys 1980;7:76–8. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.594769.
  15. Anam C, Fujibuchi T, Budi WS, Haryanto F, Dougherty G. An algorithm for automated modulation transfer function measurement using an edge of a PMMA phantom: Impact of field of view on spatial resolution of CT images. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2018;19:244–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12476.
  16. Anam C, Fujibuchi T, Haryanto F, Budi WS, Sutanto H, Adi K, et al. Automated MTF measurement in CT images with a simple wire phantom. Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering 2019;25:179–87. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjmpe-2019-0024.
  17. Zabilal Hak E, Anam C, Setia Budi W, Dougherty G. An improvement in automatic MTF measurement in CT images using an edge of the PMMA phantom. J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1505, Institute of Physics Publishing; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1505/1/012039.
  18. Samei E, Ranger NT, Dobbins JT, Chen Y. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function. Med Phys 2006;33:1454–65. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2188816.
  19. Richard S, Husarik DB, Yadava G, Murphy SN, Samei E. Towards task-based assessment of CT performance: System and object MTF across different reconstruction algorithms. Med Phys 2012;39:4115–22. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4725171.
  20. Samei E, Bakalyar D, Boedeker KL, Brady S, Fan J, Leng S, et al. Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: Summary of AAPM Task Group 233. Med Phys 2019;46:e735–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13763.
  21. Teknis MR. GE Healthcare Revolution EVO Produk ini disertifikasi sebagai Revolustion EVO CT System. 2014.

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology

Downloads

Published

2023-06-30

Issue

Volume 10, Issue 3, May-June-2023

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) IJSRST

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

[1]
Nofrianto Nofrianto, Choirul Anam, Eko Hidayanto, Ariij Naufal "Comparison of MTFs Measured using IndoQCT and ImQuest Software on GE CT Phantom Images " International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011,Volume 10, Issue 3, pp.852-858, May-June-2023. Available at doi : https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST523103156