Top

European Radiology

Published in:

Open Access 01-05-2020 | Computed Tomography

Physical evaluation of an ultra-high-resolution CT scanner

Authors: Luuk J. Oostveen, Kirsten L. Boedeker, Monique Brink, Mathias Prokop, Frank de Lange, Ioannis Sechopoulos

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2020

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the technical performance of an ultra-high-resolution CT (UHRCT) system.

Methods

The physico-technical capabilities of a novel commercial UHRCT system were assessed and compared with those of a current-generation multi-detector (MDCT) system. The super-high-resolution (SHR) mode of the system uses 0.25 mm (at isocentre) detector elements (dels) in the in-plane and longitudinal directions, while the high-resolution (HR) mode bins two dels in the longitudinal direction. The normal-resolution (NR) mode bins dels 2 × 2, resulting in a del-size equivalent to that of the MDCT system. In general, standard procedures and phantoms were used to perform these assessments.

Results

The UHRCT MTF (10% MTF 4.1 lp/mm) is twice as high as that of the MDCT (10% MTF 1.9 lp/mm), which is comparable to the MTF in the NR mode (10% MTF 1.7 lp/mm). The width of the slice sensitivity profile in the SHR mode (FWHM 0.45 mm) is about 60% of that of the MDCT (FWHM 0.77 mm). Uniformity and CT numbers are within the expected range. Noise in the high-resolution modes has a higher magnitude and higher frequency components compared with MDCT. Low-contrast visibility is lower for the NR, HR and SHR modes compared with MDCT, but about a 14%, for NR, and 23%, for HR and SHR, dose increase gives the same results.

Conclusions

HR and SHR mode scanning results in double the spatial resolution, with about a 23% increase in dose required to achieve the same low-contrast detectability.

Key Points

• Resolution on UHRCT is up to twice as high as for the tested MDCT.

• With abdominal settings, UHRCT needs higher dose for the same low-contrast detectability as MDCT, but dose is still below achievable levels as defined by current diagnostic reference levels.

• The UHRCT system used in normal-resolution mode yields comparable resolution and noise characteristics as the MDCT system.

Available only for authorised users

Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML et al (2008) Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:535–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-008-9308-2 CrossRefPubMed

Duan X, Wang J, Leng S et al (2013) Electronic noise in CT detectors: impact on image noise and artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W626–W632. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10234 CrossRefPubMed

Hata A, Yanagawa M, Honda O et al (2018) Effect of matrix size on the image quality of ultra-high-resolution CT of the lung. Comparison of 512 × 512, 1024 × 1024, and 2048 × 2048. Acad Radiol 2048:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.11.017 CrossRef

Yoshioka K, Tanaka R, Takagi H et al (2017) Ultra-high-resolution CT angiography of the artery of Adamkiewicz: a feasibility study. Neuroradiology:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-017-1927-7

Meijer FJA, Schuijf JD, de Vries J, Boogaarts HD, van der Woude WJ, Prokop M (2019) Ultra-high-resolution subtraction CT angiography in the follow-up of treated intracranial aneurysms. Insights Imaging 10:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0685-y

Onishi H, Hori M, Ota T et al (2018) Phantom study of in-stent restenosis at high-spatial-resolution CT. Radiology 289:255–260. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180188 CrossRefPubMed

Gupta R, Grasruck M, Suess C et al (2006) Ultra-high resolution flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, design architecture, and system characterization. Eur Radiol 16:1191–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0156-y CrossRefPubMed

Gupta R, Cheung AC, Bartling SH et al (2008) Flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, technology, and applications. Radiographics 28:2009–2022. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.287085004 CrossRefPubMed

Greschus S, Kiessling F, Lichy MP et al (2005) Potential applications of flat-panel volumetric CT in morphologic, functional small animal imaging. Neoplasia 7:730–740. https://doi.org/10.1593/neo.05160 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Ross W, Cody DD, Hazle JD (2006) Design and performance characteristics of a digital flat-panel computed tomography system. Med Phys 33:1888–1901. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2198941 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Flohr TG, Stierstorfer K, Süss C, Schmidt B, Primak AN, McCollough CH (2007) Novel ultrahigh resolution data acquisition and image reconstruction for multi-detector row CT. Med Phys 34:1712–1723. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2722872

12.

Imai Y, Nukui M, Ishihara Y et al (2009) Development and performance evaluation of an experimental fine pitch detector multislice CT scanner. Med Phys 36:1120–1127. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3086117 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Leng S, Yu Z, Halaweish A et al (2016) Dose-efficient ultrahigh-resolution scan mode using a photon counting detector computed tomography system. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 3:043504. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.3.4.043504 CrossRef

14.

Willemink MJ, Persson M, Pourmorteza A, Pelc NJ, Fleischmann D (2018) Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 289:293–312. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172656

15.

The Phantom Laboratory (2014) Catphan 500 and 600 Manual. Available via https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/fys/nedlagte-emner/FYS4760/h07/Catphan500-600manual.pdf

16.

American College of Radiology (ACR) (2017) Computed tomography: quality control. Available via https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/NOINDEX/QCManuals/CT_QCManual.pdf

17.

Hara T, Ichikawa K, Sanada S, Ida Y (2010) Image quality dependence on in-plane positions and directions for MDCT images. Eur J Radiol 75:114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.060 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cruz-Bastida JP, Gomez-Cardona D, Li K et al (2016) Hi-res scan mode in clinical MDCT systems: experimental assessment of spatial resolution performance. Med Phys 43:2399–2409. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4946816 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Rubert N, Szczykutowicz TP, Ranallo F (2016) Improvement in CT image resolution due to the use of focal spot deflection and increased sampling. J Appl Clin Med Phys 17:6039. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6039 CrossRef

20.

Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RL (2017) U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology 284:120–133. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161911

21.

Roch P, Célier D, Dessaud C, Etard C (2018) Using diagnostic reference levels to evaluate the improvement of patient dose optimisation and the influence of recent technologies in radiography and computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 98:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Akagi M, Nakamura Y, Higaki T et al (2019) Deep learning reconstruction improves image quality of abdominal ultra-high-resolution CT. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06170-3

Title: Physical evaluation of an ultra-high-resolution CT scanner
Authors: Luuk J. Oostveen
Kirsten L. Boedeker
Monique Brink
Mathias Prokop
Frank de Lange
Ioannis Sechopoulos
Publication date: 01-05-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06635-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Physical evaluation of an ultra-high-resolution CT scanner

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Combination of an ultrafast TWIST-VIBE Dixon sequence protocol and diffusion-weighted imaging into an accurate easily applicable classification tool for masses in breast MRI

Cone-beam breast CT features associated with HER2/neu overexpression in patients with primary breast cancer

The influence of image quality on diagnostic performance of a machine learning–based fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CT angiography

Marginal radiomics features as imaging biomarkers for pathological invasion in lung adenocarcinoma

Microwave ablation after downstaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: outcome was similar to tumor within Milan criteria

MRI of non-specific low back pain and/or lumbar radiculopathy: do we need T1 when using a sagittal T2-weighted Dixon sequence?