Automated Slice Thickness Measurement on the Nessoft CT QA Phantom

Authors

  • Rini Marini  Departement of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl. Prof. Soedarto SH, Tembalang, Semarang 50275, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Choirul Anam  Departement of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl. Prof. Soedarto SH, Tembalang, Semarang 50275, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Eko Hidayanto  Departement of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl. Prof. Soedarto SH, Tembalang, Semarang 50275, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Ariij Naufal  Departement of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl. Prof. Soedarto SH, Tembalang, Semarang 50275, Central Java, Indonesia
  • Geoff Dougherty  Department of Applied Physics and Medical Imaging, California State University Channel Islands, Camarillo, CA 93012, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST52310386

Keywords:

Computed Tomography, Slice thickness, Image quality, Neusoft phantom

Abstract

Purpose: This study proposes a method for automatically measuring slice thickness on image of the Neusoft CT quality assurance (QA) phantom. Method: The Neusoft CT QA phantom was scanned by a Neuviz 16-slice Neusoft CT Scanner. Automated measurement was implemented using IndoQCT software, while manual measurement was conducted using MicroDicom viewer as comparison. The system was evaluated on images with variations of slice thickness (i.e 1.25, 2.5, 3, 5, and 10 mm), tube voltage (i.e. 80,100,120, and 140 kV), and tube current (i.e. 77, 154, 231, and 233 mA). Results: The results of automated slice thickness method for slice thicknesses of 1.25, 2.5, 3, 5, and 10 mm were 1.47 + 0.17, 2.67 + 0.08, 3.21 + 0.17, 5.21 + 0.13, and 10.95 + 0.28 mm, respectively. By comparison, the results of manual slice thickness method were 2.91 + 0.17, 3.28 + 0.29, 3.56 + 0.29, 4.72 + 0.27, and 11.35 + 2.03, respectively (p-value 0.009, 0.002, 0.047, 0.008, and 0.714). The results of automated method for tube voltages of 80,100,120, and 140 kV were 5.61 + 0.34, 5.12 + 0.23, 5.08 + 0.23, and 4.98 + 0.28 mm. By comparison, the manual slice thickness method results were 4.71 + 0.39, 4.82 + 0.54, 4.89 + 0.50, and 4.79 + 0.43 mm (p-value 0.005, 0.291, 0.473, 0.452). The results of automated method for tube currents of 77, 154, 231, and 233 mA were 5.19 + 0.26, 4.98 + 0.28, 5.06 + 0.41, and 4.96 + 0.13 mm. By comparison, the results of manual slice thickness method were 4.42 + 0.34, 4.92 + 0.11, 4.72 + 0.37, and 4.80 + 0.46 mm (p-value 0.004, 0.642, 0.22, 0.75). Conclusions: An automated slice thickness measurement on Neusoft CT the QA phantom image was successfully developed. The measurement results of the automated method are closer to the set thickness than the manual method. The results of automatic slice thickness method are accurate for tube voltage, and tube current variations.

References

  1. Samei E, Pelc JJ. Computed Tomography. Springer. 2020.
  2. American College of Radiology. Computed Tomography Quality Control Manual. 2017.
  3. Dillon C, Breeden W, Clements J, et al. American College of Radiology. Computed Tomography. Quality Control Manual. 2017.
  4. Ni Putu Rita Jeniyanthi. The effect of slice thickness variations on the quality of the image and value bleeding volume on DSCT brain examination. International Journal of Allied Medical Sciences and Clinical Research, 8(2), 251-257. Retrieved from https://ijamscr.com/ijamscr/article/view/859. 2020
  5. Samsun S, Prananto L, Wulandari N. Image quality differences in CT scan thorax by using slice thickness variation. SANITAS: Jurnal Teknologi dan Seni Kesehatan. 2017;8(2):87-91.
  6. International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality assurance programme for computed tomography: Diagnostic and therapy applications. IAEA Human Health Series No ĚŠ19, IAEA, Vienna. 2012.
  7. Kim YJ, Lee HJ, Kim HG, Lee SH. Research Article: The effect of CT scan parameters on the measurement of CT radiomic features: A lung nodule phantom study. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2019;2019;8790694.
  8. Ford JM, Decker SJ. Computed tomography slice thickness and its effects on three-dimensional reconstruction of anatomical structures. Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging. 2016;4:43-46.
  9. Dowsett DJ, Kenny PA, Johnston RE. The physics of diagnostic imaging. Second edition. 2006.
  10. Luo H, He Y, Jin F, et al. Impact of CT slice thickness on volume and dose evaluation during thoracic cancer radiotherapy. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:3679-3686.
  11. Monnin P, Sfameni N Gianoli A, Ding S. Optimal slice thickness for object detection with longitudinal partial volume effects in computed tomography. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(1):251-259.
  12. Makmur IWA, Setiabudi W, Anam C. Evaluasi ketebalan irisan (slice thickness) pada pesawat CT scan single slice. Jurnal Sains dan Matematika. 2013;21(2):42-47.
  13. Giuseppe Vermiglio, Giuseppe Acri, Barbara Testagrossa, 2011. Procedure for Evaluation of slice thickness in Medical Imaging systems. Modern Approaches to quality control DOI : 10.5772/23693. InTech Open, London: Nov 2011.
  14. Sofiyatun S, Anam C, Zahra UM, Rukmana DA, Dougherty G. An automated measurement of image slice thickness of computed tomography. Atom Indonesia. 2021;47(2):121-128.
  15. Lasiyah N, Anam C, Hidayanto E, Dougherty G. Automated procedure for slice thickness verification of computed tomography images: Variations of slice thickness, the position from iso center and reconstruction filter. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021;22(7):313-321.
  16. Hobson MA,Soisson ET, Davis SD, Parker W. Using the ACR CT accreditation phantom for routine image quality assurance on both CT and CBCT imaging systems in a radiotherapy environment. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(4):4835.
  17. Jiang H. Computed Tomography Principles, Design, Artifact and Recent Advances Second Edition. Publish by SPIE Bellingham, Washington. 2009.
  18. Njiki CD, Ma-you JEMN, Yigbedeck YE, Abou’ou DW, Yimele BC, Sabouang JF. Assessment of image quality parameters for computed tomography in the City of Yaoundé. Open Journal of Radiology. 2018;8:37-44.
  19. Popkin BM, D'Anci KE, Rosenberg IH. Water, hydration, and health. Nutr Rev. 2010;68(8):439-58.
  20. Multi-slice CT Scanner System NeuViz 16 Classic User Manual (Vol 1) Neusoft Medical System Co., Ltd. No. 177-1 Chuangxin Road, Hunnan District, Shenyang, Liaoning, China 110167. Https://medical.neusoft.com.
  21. 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.
  22. Anam C, Naufal A, IndoQCTv22a: Software for evaluating the quality of computed tomography images. Technical report December 2022.
  23. Arkkelin Daniel, “Using SPSS to understand Research and Data Analysis” (2014). Physchology Curricular Materials.1. https:// scholar.valpo.edu/psych_oer/1
  24. Kim TK. T test as a parametric statistic. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015;68(6):540-6.
  25. Gerald B. A brief review of independent, dependent and one sample t-test. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. 2018;4(2):50-54.

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]
Rini Marini, Choirul Anam, Eko Hidayanto, Ariij Naufal, Geoff Dougherty "Automated Slice Thickness Measurement on the Nessoft CT QA Phantom" International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011,Volume 10, Issue 3, pp.472-484, May-June-2023. Available at doi : https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST52310386