Relationship between Low-Contrast Detectability and Water-Equivalent Diameter on the Hitachi Water Phantom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST24114201Keywords:
Low-contrast detectability, water-equivalent diameter, Hitachi water phantomAbstract
This study aims to determine relationship between water-equivalent diameter (Dw) and low-contract detectability (LCD) for various reconstruction filters. The water phantoms were Hitachi phantoms with diameters of 16, 22.5, 30, and 38 cm. The phantoms were scanned with a 64-slice Hitachi CT Scanner and reconstructed with various reconstruction filters (i.e., bone, head and abdomen filters). The Dw values were automatically calculated using IndoseCT software. The noise and minimum detectable contrast (MDC) of LCD were automatically calculated using IndoQCT software. It is found that Dw corresponds to the phantom diameter and is not affected by any of the reconstruction filters. Noise is affected by phantom diameter and reconstruction filter. Minimum detectable contrast is strongly affected by the phantom diameter and reconstruction filter. The minimum detectable contrast increases with the increase of the phantom diameter. Therefore, optimization needs to be done for different patient sizes and different filter reconstruction for clinical applications.
Downloads
References
Baruchel J, J. Buffiere, E. Maire. X-ray Tomography in Materials Science, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2000;31.
Aslan, N, B. Ceylan, M. Mehmet, F. Findik, 2020, Metallic nanoparticles as X-Ray computed tomograpphy (CT) contrast agents: A review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2020.128599
Alsleem HA, Almohiy HM. The Feasibility of Contrast-to-Noise Ratio on Measurements to Evaluate CT Image Quality in Terms of Low-Contrast Detailed Detectability, Med. Sci, 2020;8(3),26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci8030026
Solomon J, Mileto A, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Samei E. Diagnostic performance of an advanced modelled iterative reconstruction dual-source multidetector CT scanner: potential for radiation dose reduction in a multireader study. Radiology. 2015;275(3):735-745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15142005
Davidson R, Alseem H, Floor M, van der Burght R. A new image quality measure in CT: feasibility of a contrast-detail meansurement method. Radiography. 2016;22(4);274-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2016.04.003
Anam C, Naufal A, Fujibuchi, T, Matsubara K, & Dougherty G. Automated development of the contrast-detail curva based on statistical low-contrast detectibility in CT images, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2022;23:e18719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13719
Chao EH, Toth TL, Bromberg NB, Williams EC, Fox SH, Carleton DA. A statistical method of defining low contrast detectabillity. Radiology. 2000;217:162-162.
Kim S, Lagu H, Samei E, Yin F, Yoshizumi TT. Computed tomography dose index and dose leght product for cone-beam CT. Monte Carlo simulations. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011;12(2):84-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3395
Huda W and Mettler FA. V0lume CT Dose index and dose-leght product displayed during CT; what good are they? Radiology. 2011;258(1);245-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100297
AAPM. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in paediatric and adult body CT examinations. Task Group Report, 2011;204.
Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I, Dougherty G. Automated calculation of water-equivalent diameter (DW) based on AAPM task group 220, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2016;17(4):320-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6171
AAPM. AAPM TG 220: Use of Water Equivalent Diameter for Calculating Patient Size and Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in CT, AAPM Report. 2014;220, 1-23.
Terashima M, Mizonabe K, Date H. Determination of Approriate Conversion Factors for Calculating Size-Specific Dose Estimates Based on X-Ray CT Scan Images After Miscentering Correction, Radiological Physics and Technology, 2019;12(3), 283-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-019-00519-5
Anam C, Arif I, Haryanto F, Lestari FP, Widita R, Budi WS, Sutanto H, Adi K, Fujibuchi T, Dougherty G. An improved method of automated noise measurement system in CT images. J Biomed Phys Eng, 2021;11(2):163-174.
Choi HR, Kim RE, Heo CW, Kim CW, Yoo M.S, Lee Y. Optimisation of dose and image quality using self-produced phantom with various diameters in paediatric abdominal CT scan. Optics, 2018;168, 54-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2018.04.066
Martin C.J, Sookpeng S. Setting up computed tomography automatic tube current modulation systems. Journal of Radiological Protection, 2016;36(3), R74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/36/3/R74
Goenka AH, Herts BR, Dong F, Obuchowski NA, Primak AN, Karim W, Baker ME. Image noise, CNR, and detectability of low-contrast, low-attenuation liver lesions in a phantom: effects of radiation exposure, phantom size, integrated circuit detector, and iterative reconstruction. Radiology, 2016;280(2), 475-482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151621
Leng S, Bruesewitz M, Tao S, Rajendran K, Halaweish AF, Campeau NG, McCollough CH. Photon-counting detector CT: system design and clinical applications of an emerging technology. Radiographics, 2019;39(3), 729-743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180115
Torgensen GR, Hol C, Mϕystad A, Hellen-Helme K, Nisson M. A phantom for simplified image quality control of dental cone beam computed tomography units. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Rasol, 2014l118(5):603-611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.08.003
Nishii T, Kotoku A, Hori Y, Matsuzaki Y, Watanabe Y, Morita Y, Fukuda, T. Filtered back projection revisited in low-kilovolt computed tomography angiography: sharp filter kernel enhances visualisation of the artery of Adamkiewicz. Neuroradiology, 2019;61, 305-311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2136-8
Schofield R, King L, Tayal U, Castellano I, Stirrup J, Pontana F, Earls J, Nicol E. Image recontruction: part 1-understanding filtered back projection, noise and image acquisition. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, 2020(4);2019-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2019.04.008
Pakdel, A, Hardisty M, Fialkov J, Whyne C. Restoration of thickness, density, and volume for highly blurred thin cortical bones in clinical CT images. Annals of biomedical engineering, 2016(44), 3359-3371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1654-y
Anam C, Adhianto D, Sutanto H, Adi K, Ali MH, Rae WID, Fujibuchi T, Dougherty G. Comparison of central, peripheral, and weighted size-specific dose in CT. J Xray Sci Technol. 2020;28(4):695–708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-200667
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
