双源双能CT使用单能量或双能量扫描及不同重建方法在肝动脉相成像中的优化

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (0)

Download: PDF (2453 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective: To Compare the image quality and radiation dose of image acquired from a dual energy CT scan with image obtained from a single energy scan in the second dual-source generation system abdominal CT combined with iterative reconstruction. To determine the optimal scan methods and reconstruction methods for clinical work. Methods: Two size arterial phase liver phantoms containing two density lesions (low and high) was scanned using a second generation dual source dual energy CT (DSCT) scanner in the single energy mode (120 kVp) and the dual energy mode (100 kVp/Sn 140 kVp). Images were reconstructed with both filtered back-projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms. Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and the dose length product (DLP) recorded from all protocols were used to dose evaluation. For quantitative analyses of the phantom, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM) were measured. Results: For small size phantom, CNR of high density lesions in the mixed images derived from a dual energy CT scan was significantly higher than that in images acquired with a single-energy scan (P<0.05), while there was no statistically significant difference existed in low density lesions (P>0.05). For big size phantom, CNR of both high and low density lesions in dual-energy mixed images showed a higher CNR in comparison to single-energy images (P<0.05). Dose of dual energy CT scan was higher than that of single energy scan. As to FOM, except in the low density lesions group IR images of small size phantom, there was no significant difference between all lesions of the dual energy scanning standard fusion image and single energy scanning image (P>0.05). Compared with FBP images, CNR of IR images was significantly better than that of FBP images (P<0.05). Conclusion: Take both the image quality and radiation dose to consider, there is no obvious difference between the dual energy scanning standard fusion image and single energy scanning image. IR images always have higher CNR than FBP images. Above all, IR image reconstruction is suggested in hepatic artery phase scanning image both in dual or single-energy images, and dual energy scan should be choosed according to whether need material-specific information

Key words： dual source dualenergy CT radiography, abdominal radiation dosage image quality

Received: 22 March 2017

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	DU Meimei
	CHEN Bo
	YAN Zhihan
	CHEN Tuorong
	TYAN Yeusheng.

URL:

https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2017/V47/I8/576

[1] JOHNSON T R, KRAUSS B, SEDLMAIR M, et al. Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience[J]. Eur Radiol, 2007, 17(6): 1510-1517.
[2] MARIN D, BOLL D T, MILETO A, et al. State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen[J]. Radiology, 2014, 271(2): 327-342.
[3] BOLL D T, PATIL N A, PAULSON E K, et al. Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone composition—pilot study[J]. Radiology, 2009, 250(3): 813-820.
[4] DESAI M A, PETERSON J J, GARNER H W, et al. Clinical utility of dual-energy CT for evaluation of tophaceous gout[J]. Radiographics, 2011, 31(5): 1365-1375.
[5] BROWN C L, HARTMAN R P, DZYUBAK O P, et al. Dual-energy CT iodine overlay technique for characterization of renal masses as cyst or solid: a phantom feasibility study[J].Eur Radiol, 2009, 19(5): 1289-1295.
[6] MILETO A, MAZZIOTTI S, GAETA M, et al. Pancreatic dual-source dual-energy CT: is it time to discard unenhanced imaging?[J]. Clin Radiol, 2012, 67(4): 334-339.
[7] AGRAWAL M D, PINHO D F, KULKARNI N M, et al. Oncologic applications of dual-energy CT in the abdomen[J]. Radiographics, 2014, 34(3): 589-612.
[8] LENG S, YU L, FLETCHER J G, et al. Maximizing iodine contrast-to-noise ratios in abdominal CT imaging through use of energy domain noise reduction and virtual mono-energetic dual-energy CT[J]. Radiology, 2015, 276(2): 562-570.
[9] Singh S, Kalra M K, Hsieh J, et al. Abdominal CT:comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques[J]. Radiology, 2011, 257(2): 373-383.
[10] STOCK M, PASLER M, BIRKFELLNER W, et al. Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT)devices: A comparative study[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2009, 93(1): 1-7.
[11] Hye S P, Heejoung K, Yuna C, et al. Optimization of the imaging parameters in clinical digital Mammography[J]. J Korean Phys Soc, 2011, 59(1): 176-182.
[12] YU L, PRIMAK A N, LIU X, et al. Image quality optimization and evaluation of linearly mixed images in dual-source, dual-energy CT[J]. Med Phys, 2009, 36(3): 1019-1024.
[13] SCHENZLE J C, SOMMER W H, NEUMAIER K, et al. Dual energy CT of the chest: how about the dose?[J]. Invest Radiol, 2010, 45(6): 347-353.
[14] COUPAL T M, MALLINSON P I, GERSHONY S L, et al. Getting the most from your dual-energy scanner: recognizing, reducing, and eliminating artifacts[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2016, 206(1): 119-128.
[15] ASCENTI G, KRAUSS B, MAZZIOTTI S, et al. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in renal masses: nonlinear versus linear blending[J]. Acad Radiol, 2012, 19(10): 1186-1193.
[16] PADOLE A, ALI KHAWAJA R D, KALRA M K, et al. CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015, 204(4): W384-392.