Lung dual energy CT: Impact of different technological solutions on quantitative analysis.

Autor: Ghetti C; Medical Physics Unit - University Hospital of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126 Parma, Italy., Ortenzia O; Medical Physics Unit - University Hospital of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126 Parma, Italy. Electronic address: oortenzia@ao.pr.it., Bertolini M; Medical Physics Unit - AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Via Amendola 2, 42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy., Sceni G; Medical Physics Unit - AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Via Amendola 2, 42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy., Sverzellati N; Unit of Scienze Radiologiche, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126 Parma, Italy., Silva M; Unit of Scienze Radiologiche, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126 Parma, Italy., Maddalo M; Medical Physics Unit - University Hospital of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126 Parma, Italy.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: European journal of radiology [Eur J Radiol] 2023 Jun; Vol. 163, pp. 110812. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Apr 06.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110812
Abstrakt: Purpose: To evaluated the accuracy of spectral parameters quantification of four different CT scanners in dual energy examinations of the lung using a dedicated phantom.
Method: Measurements were made with different technologies of the same vendor: one dual source CT scanner (DSCT), one TwinBeam (i.e. split filter) and two sequential acquisition single source scanners (SSCT). Angular separation of Calcium and Iodine signals were calculated from scatter plots of low-kVp versus high-kVp HUs. Electron density (ρe), effective atomic number (Zeff) and Iodine concentration (Iconc) were measured using Syngo.via software. Accuracy (A) of ρe, Zeff and Iconc was evaluated as the absolute percentage difference (D%) between reference values and measured ones, while precision (P) was evaluated as the variability σ obtained by repeating the measurement with different acquisition/reconstruction settings.
Results: Angular separation was significantly larger for DSCT (α = 9.7°) and for sequential SSCT (α = 9.9°) systems. TwinBeam was less performing in material separation (α = 5.0°). The lowest average A was observed for TwinBeam (A ρe  = [4.7 ± 1.0], A Z  = [9.1 ± 3.1], A Iconc  = [19.4 ± 4.4]), while the best average A was obtained for Flash (A ρe  = [1.8 ± 0.4], A Z  = [3.5 ± 0.7], A Iconc  = [7.3 ± 1.8]). TwinBeam presented inferior average P (P ρe  = [0.6 ± 0.1], P Z  = [1.1 ± 0.2], P Iconc  = [10.9 ± 4.9]), while other technologies demonstrate a comparable average.
Conclusions: Different technologies performed material separation and spectral parameter quantification with different degrees of accuracy and precision. DSCT performed better while TwinBeam demonstrated not excellent performance. Iodine concentration measurements exhibited high variability due to low Iodine absolute content in lung nodules, thus limiting its clinical usefulness in pulmonary applications.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: