Dataset Information

Subjective and objective comparisons of image quality between ultra-high-resolution CT and conventional area detector CT in phantoms and cadaveric human lungs.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To compare the image quality of the lungs between ultra-high-resolution CT (U-HRCT) and conventional area detector CT (AD-CT) images. METHODS:Image data of slit phantoms (0.35, 0.30, and 0.15 mm) and 11 cadaveric human lungs were acquired by both U-HRCT and AD-CT devices. U-HRCT images were obtained with three acquisition modes: normal mode (U-HRCTN: 896 channels, 0.5 mm × 80 rows; 512 matrix), super-high-resolution mode (U-HRCTSHR: 1792 channels, 0.25 mm × 160 rows; 1024 matrix), and volume mode (U-HRCTSHR-VOL: non-helical acquisition with U-HRCTSHR). AD-CT images were obtained with the same conditions as U-HRCTN. Three independent observers scored normal anatomical structures (vessels and bronchi), abnormal CT findings (faint nodules, solid nodules, ground-glass opacity, consolidation, emphysema, interlobular septal thickening, intralobular reticular opacities, bronchovascular bundle thickening, bronchiectasis, and honeycombing), noise, artifacts, and overall image quality on a 3-point scale (1 = worst, 2 = equal, 3 = best) compared with U-HRCTN. Noise values were calculated quantitatively. RESULTS:U-HRCT could depict a 0.15-mm slit. Both U-HRCTSHR and U-HRCTSHR-VOL significantly improved visualization of normal anatomical structures and abnormal CT findings, except for intralobular reticular opacities and reduced artifacts, compared with AD-CT (p < 0.014). Visually, U-HRCTSHR-VOL has less noise than U-HRCTSHR and AD-CT (p < 0.00001). Quantitative noise values were significantly higher in the following order: U-HRCTSHR (mean, 30.41), U-HRCTSHR-VOL (26.84), AD-CT (16.03), and U-HRCTN (15.14) (p < 0.0001). U-HRCTSHR and U-HRCTSHR-VOL resulted in significantly higher overall image quality than AD-CT and were almost equal to U-HRCTN (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Both U-HRCTSHR and U-HRCTSHR-VOL can provide higher image quality than AD-CT, while U-HRCTSHR-VOL was less noisy than U-HRCTSHR. KEY POINTS:• Ultra-high-resolution CT (U-HRCT) can improve spatial resolution. • U-HRCT can reduce streak and dark band artifacts. • U-HRCT can provide higher image quality than conventional area detector CT. • In U-HRCT, the volume mode is less noisy than the super-high-resolution mode. • U-HRCT may provide more detailed information about the lung anatomy and pathology.

SUBMITTER: Yanagawa M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6223853 | biostudies-other | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Subjective and objective comparisons of image quality between ultra-high-resolution CT and conventional area detector CT in phantoms and cadaveric human lungs.

Yanagawa Masahiro M Hata Akinori A Honda Osamu O Kikuchi Noriko N Miyata Tomo T Uranishi Ayumi A Tsukagoshi Shinsuke S Tomiyama Noriyuki N

European radiology 20180529 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the image quality of the lungs between ultra-high-resolution CT (U-HRCT) and conventional area detector CT (AD-CT) images.<h4>Methods</h4>Image data of slit phantoms (0.35, 0.30, and 0.15 mm) and 11 cadaveric human lungs were acquired by both U-HRCT and AD-CT devices. U-HRCT images were obtained with three acquisition modes: normal mode (U-HRCT<sub>N</sub>: 896 channels, 0.5 mm × 80 rows; 512 matrix), super-high-resolution mode (U-HRCT<sub>SHR</sub>: 1792 channels, ...[more]

PMID: 29845337

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study was conducted in order to compare the effect of field of view (FOV) size on image quality between ultra-high-resolution CT (U-HRCT) and conventional high-resolution CT (HRCT). METHODS:Eleven cadaveric lungs were scanned with U-HRCT and conventional HRCT and reconstructed with five FOVs (40, 80, 160, 240, and 320 mm). Three radiologists evaluated and scored the images. Three image evaluations were performed, comparing the image quality with the five FOVs with respect to the 160-mm FOV. The first evaluation was performed on conventional HRCT images, and the second evaluation on U-HRCT images. Images were scored on normal structure, abnormal findings, and overall image quality. The third evaluation was a comparison of the images obtained with conventional HRCT and U-HRCT, with scoring performed on overall image quality. Quantitative evaluation of noise was performed by setting ROIs. RESULTS:In conventional HRCT, image quality was improved when the FOV was reduced to 160 mm. In U-HRCT, image quality, except for noise, improved when the FOV was reduced to 80 mm. In the third evaluation, overall image quality was improved in U-HRCT over conventional HRCT at all FOVs. Noise of U-HRCT increased with respect to conventional HRCT when the FOV was reduced from 160 to 40 mm. However, at 240- and 320-mm FOVs, the noise of U-HRCT and conventional HRCT showed no differences. CONCLUSIONS:In conventional HRCT, image quality did not improve when the FOV was reduced below 160 mm. However, in U-HRCT, image quality improved even when the FOV was reduced to 80 mm. KEY POINTS:• Reducing the size of the field of view to 160 mm improves diagnostic imaging quality in high-resolution CT. • In ultra-high-resolution CT, improvements in image quality can be obtained by reducing the size of the field of view to 80 mm. • Ultra-high-resolution CT produces images of higher quality compared with conventional HRCT irrespective of the size of the field of view.

Project description:PurposeThe aim of this paper is to describe a public, open-access, computed tomography (CT) phantom image set acquired at three centers and collected especially for radiomics reproducibility research. The dataset is useful to test radiomic features reproducibility with respect to various parameters, such as acquisition settings, scanners, and reconstruction algorithms.Acquisition and validation methodsThree phantoms were scanned in three independent institutions. Images of the following phantoms were acquired: Catphan 700 and COPDGene Phantom II (Phantom Laboratory, Greenwich, NY, USA), and the Triple modality 3D Abdominal Phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA). Data were collected at three Dutch medical centers: MAASTRO Clinic (Maastricht, NL), Radboud University Medical Center (Nijmegen, NL), and University Medical Center Groningen (Groningen, NL) with scanners from two different manufacturers Siemens Healthcare and Philips Healthcare. The following acquisition parameter were varied in the phantom scans: slice thickness, reconstruction kernels, and tube current.Data format and usage notesWe made the dataset publically available on the Dutch instance of "Extensible Neuroimaging Archive Toolkit-XNAT" (https://xnat.bmia.nl). The dataset is freely available and reusable with attribution (Creative Commons 3.0 license).Potential applicationsOur goal was to provide a findable, open-access, annotated, and reusable CT phantom dataset for radiomics reproducibility studies. Reproducibility testing and harmonization are fundamental requirements for wide generalizability of radiomics-based clinical prediction models. It is highly desirable to include only reproducible features into models, to be more assured of external validity across hitherto unseen contexts. In this view, phantom data from different centers represent a valuable source of information to exclude CT radiomic features that may already be unstable with respect to simplified structures and tightly controlled scan settings. The intended extension of our shared dataset is to include other modalities and phantoms with more realistic lesion simulations.

Dataset Information

Subjective and objective comparisons of image quality between ultra-high-resolution CT and conventional area detector CT in phantoms and cadaveric human lungs.

Publications

Subjective and objective comparisons of image quality between ultra-high-resolution CT and conventional area detector CT in phantoms and cadaveric human lungs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets