Top

Published in:

01-06-2015 | Musculoskeletal

Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system

Authors: S. Demehri, A. Muhit, W. Zbijewski, J. W. Stayman, J. Yorkston, N. Packard, R. Senn, D. Yang, D. Foos, G. K. Thawait, L. M. Fayad, A. Chhabra, J. A. Carrino, J. H. Siewerdsen

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2015

Abstract

Objective

To assess visualization tasks using cone-beam CT (CBCT) compared to multi-detector CT (MDCT) for musculoskeletal extremity imaging.

Methods

Ten cadaveric hands and ten knees were examined using a dedicated CBCT prototype and a clinical multi-detector CT using nominal protocols (80kVp-108mAs for CBCT; 120kVp- 300mAs for MDCT). Soft tissue and bone visualization tasks were assessed by four radiologists using five-point satisfaction (for CBCT and MDCT individually) and five-point preference (side-by-side CBCT versus MDCT image quality comparison) rating tests. Ratings were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and observer agreement was assessed using the Kappa-statistic.

Results

Knee CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “good” (median scores 5 and 4) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Hand CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “adequate” (median scores 5 and 3) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Preference tests rated CBCT equivalent or superior to MDCT for bone visualization and favoured the MDCT for soft tissue visualization tasks. Intraobserver agreement for CBCT satisfaction tests was fair to almost perfect (κ ~ 0.26–0.92), and interobserver agreement was fair to moderate (κ ~ 0.27–0.54).

Conclusion

CBCT provided excellent image quality for bone visualization and adequate image quality for soft tissue visualization tasks.

Key Points

• CBCT provided adequate image quality for diagnostic tasks in extremity imaging.

• CBCT images were “excellent” for “bone” and “good/adequate” for “soft tissue” visualization tasks.

• CBCT image quality was equivalent/superior to MDCT for bone visualization tasks.

Available only for authorised users

Fayad LM, Corl F, Fishman EK (2009) Pediatric skeletal trauma: use of multiplanar reformatted and three-dimensional 64-row multidetector CT in the emergency department. Radiographics 29(1):135–50CrossRefPubMed

Demehri S, Chalian M, Farahani SJ, Fishman EK, Fayad LM (2014) Detection and characterization of tendon abnormalities with multidetector computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38(2):299–307CrossRefPubMed

Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P (2006) Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 72(1):75–80PubMed

O”Connell A, Conover DL, Zhang Y et al (2010) Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(2):496–509CrossRef

Ingrosso G, Miceli R, Fedele D et al (2012) Cone-beam computed tomography in hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases. Radiat Oncol 7(1):54CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Yu JJ, Kim GT, Choi YS et al (2012) Accuracy of a cone beam computed tomography-guided surgical stent for orthodontic mini-implant placement. Angle Orthod 82(2):275–83CrossRefPubMed

Carrino JA, Al Muhit A, Zbijewski W, Thawait GK, Stayman JW, Packard N, Senn R, Yang D, Foos DH, Yorkston J, Siewerdsen JH (2014) Dedicated cone-beam CT system for extremity imaging. Radiology 270(3):816–24CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Hirschmann A, Pfirrmann CW, Klammer G, Espinosa N, Buck FM (2014) Upright Cone CT of the hindfoot: Comparison of the non-weight-bearing with the upright weight-bearing position. Eur Radiol 24(3):553–8CrossRefPubMed

Tuominen EK, Kankare J, Koskinen SK, Mattila KT (2013) Weight-bearing CT imaging of the lower extremity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(1):146–8CrossRefPubMed

10.

Suzuki T, Ito S, Handa S et al (2010) New low-field extremity MRI, compacTscan: comparison with whole-body 1.5 T conventional MRI. Mod Rheumatol 20(4):331–6CrossRefPubMed

11.

Choi JH, Fahrig R, Keil A et al (2013) Fiducial marker-based correction for involuntary motion in weight-bearing C-arm CT scanning of knees. Part I. Numerical model-based optimization. Med Phys 40(9):091905CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

12.

Koskinen SK, Haapamäki VV, Salo J et al (2013) CT arthrography of the wrist using a novel, mobile, dedicated extremity cone-beam CT (CBCT). Skelet Radiol 42(5):649–57CrossRef

13.

Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Spiczak JV, Andreisek G, Alkadhi H (2013) In vitro high-resolution flat-panel computed tomographic arthrography for artificial cartilage defect detection: comparison with multidetector computed tomography. Invest Radiol 48(8):614–21CrossRefPubMed

14.

Finkenstaedt T, Morsbach F, Calcagni M, Vich M, Pfirrmann CW, Alkadhi H, Runge VM, Andreisek G, Guggenberger R (2014) Metallic artifacts from internal scaphoid fracture fixation screws: comparison between C-arm flat-panel, cone-beam, and multidetector computed tomography. Invest Radiol 49(8):532–9CrossRefPubMed

15.

Zbijewski W, De Jean P, Prakash P et al (2011) A dedicated cone-beam CT system for musculoskeletal extremities imaging: design, optimization, and initial performance characterization. Med Phys 38(8):4700–4713CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

16.

Dixon RL, Anderson JA, Bakalyar DM, et al (2010) Comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of radiation dose in x-ray computed tomography. AAPM Task Group Report 111

17.

Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD, et al (2011) Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in Pediatric and Adult Body CT Examinations. AAPM Task Group Report 204

18.

Kashani H, Gang JG, Shkumat NA et al (2009) Development of a high-performance dual-energy chest imaging system: initial investigation of diagnostic performance. Acad Radiol 16(4):464–476CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

19.

Williams DB, Siewerdsen JH, Tward DJ et al (2007) Optimal kvp selection for dual-energy imaging of the chest: evaluation by task-specific observer preference tests. Med Phys 34(10):3916–3925CrossRefPubMed

20.

Bidgood WD Jr, Horii SC (1992) Introduction to the ACR-NEMA DICOM standard. Radiographics 12(2):345–355CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in One-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621CrossRef

22.

Zou KH, Carrino JA (2002) Comparison of accuracy and interreader agreement in side-by-side versus independent evaluations of MR imaging of the medial collateral ligament of the elbow. Acad Radiol 9(5):520–525CrossRefPubMed

23.

Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biom Bull 1(6):80–83CrossRef

24.

Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–46CrossRef

25.

Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70(4):213–20CrossRefPubMed

26.

Mac Niocaill RF, Quinlan JF, Stapleton RD et al (2011) Inter- and intra-observer variability associated with the use of the Mirels” scoring system for metastatic bone lesions. Int Orthop 35(1):83–86CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

27.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRefPubMed

28.

Jarvik JG (2001) The research framework. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(4):873–8CrossRefPubMed

29.

Sisniega A, Zbijewski W, Badal A et al (2013) Monte Carlo study of the effects of system geometry and antiscatter grids on cone-beam CT scatter distributions. Med Phys 40(5):051915CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

30.

Erdogan H, Fessler JA (1999) Monotonic algorithms for transmission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 18(9):801–814CrossRefPubMed

31.

Muhit AA, Arora S, Ogawa M et al (2013) Peripheral quantitative CT (pQCT) using a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT scanner. SPIE Med Imaging: Biomed Appl Mol, Struct Func Imaging 29:867203–867207

32.

Link TM (2012) Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 263(1):3–17CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

33.

Odgaard A (1997) Three-dimensional methods for quantification of cancellous bone architecture. Bone 20(4):315–28CrossRefPubMed

34.

Roos PG, Colbeth RE, Mollov I et al (2004) Multiple-gain-ranging readout method to extend the dynamic range of amorphous silicon flat-panel imagers. ProcSPIE Phys Med Imaging 5368(1):139–149

Title: Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system
Authors: S. Demehri
A. Muhit
W. Zbijewski
J. W. Stayman
J. Yorkston
N. Packard
R. Senn
D. Yang
D. Foos
G. K. Thawait
L. M. Fayad
A. Chhabra
J. A. Carrino
J. H. Siewerdsen
Publication date: 01-06-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3546-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Quantitative dual-energy CT for phantomless evaluation of cancellous bone mineral density of the vertebral pedicle: correlation with pedicle screw pull-out strength

Chest CT using spectral filtration: radiation dose, image quality, and spectrum of clinical utility

Distribution and natural course of intracranial vessel wall lesions in patients with ischemic stroke or TIA at 7.0 tesla MRI

DCE-MRI of the breast in a stand-alone setting outside a complementary strategy - results of the TK-study

Multidetector-row computed tomography for prosthetic heart valve dysfunction: is concomitant non-invasive coronary angiography possible before redo-surgery?

Noise-optimized virtual monoenergetic images and iodine maps for the detection of venous thrombosis in second-generation dual-energy CT (DECT): an ex vivo phantom study