A systematic task-based image quality assessment of photon-counting and energy integrating CT as a function of reconstruction kernel and phantom size.

BACKGROUND: Image quality of photon-counting and energy integrating CT scanners changes with object size, dose to the object, and kernel selection. PURPOSE: To comprehensively compare task-generic image quality of photon-counting CT (PCCT) and energy integrating CT (EICT) systems as a function of phantom size, dose, and reconstruction kernel. METHODS: A size-variant phantom (Mercury Phantom 3.0) was used to characterize the image quality of PCCT and EICT systems as a function of object size. The phantom contained five cylinders attached by slanted tapered sections. Each cylinder contained two sections: one uniform for noise, and the other with inserts for spatial resolution and contrast measurements. The phantom was scanned on Siemens' SOMATOM Force and NAEOTOM Alpha at 1.18 and 7.51 mGy without tube current modulation. CTDIvol was matched across two systems by setting the required tube currents, else, all other acquisition settings were fixed. CT sinograms were reconstructed using FBP and iterative (ADMIRE2 - Force; QIR2 - Alpha) algorithms with Body regular (Br) kernels. Noise Power Spectrum (NPS), Task Transfer Function (TTF), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and detectability index (d') for a task of identifying 2-mm disk were evaluated based on AAPM TG-233 metrology using imQuest, an open-source software package. Averaged noise frequency (fav ) and 50% cut-off frequency for TTF (f50 ) were used as scalar metrics to quantify noise texture and spatial resolution, respectively. The difference between image quality metrics' measurements was calculated as IQPCCT - IQEICT . RESULTS: From Br40 (soft) to Br64 (sharp), f50 for air insert increased from 0.35 mm-1  ± 0.04 (standard deviation) to 0.76 mm-1  ± 0.17, 0.34 mm-1  ± 0.04 to 0.77 mm-1  ± 0.17, 0.37 mm-1  ± 0.02 to 0.95 mm-1  ± 0.17 for PCCT-T3D-QIR2, PCCT-70keV-QIR2, and EICT-ADMIRE2, respectively, when averaged over all sizes and dose levels. Similarly, from Br40 to Br64, noise magnitude increased from 10.86 HU ± 7.12 to 38.61 HU ± 18.84, 10.94 HU ± 7.08 to 38.82 HU ± 18.70, 13.74 HU ± 11.02 to 52.11 HU ± 26.22 for PCCT-T3D-QIR2, PCCT-70keV-QIR2, and EICT-ADMIRE2, respectively. The difference in fav was consistent across all sizes and dose levels. PCCT-70keV-VMI showed better consistency in contrast measurements for iodine and bone inserts than PCCT-T3D and EICT; however, PCCT-T3D had higher contrast for both inserts. From Br40 to Br64, considering all sizes and dose levels, CNR for iodine insert decreased from 52.30 ± 46.44 to 12.18 ± 10.07, 40.42 ± 33.42 to 9.48 ± 7.16, 39.94 ± 37.60 to 7.84 ± 6.67 for PCCT-T3D-QIR2, PCCT-70keV-QIR2, and EICT-ADMIRE2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCCT image types, T3D and 70-keV-VMI exhibited similar or better noise, contrast, CNR than EICT when comparing kernels with similar names. For 512 × 512 matrix, PCCT's sharp kernels had lower resolution than EICT's sharp kernels. For all image quality metrics, except extreme low, every dose condition had a similar set of IQ-matching kernels. It suggests that considering patient size and dose level to determine IQ-matching kernel pairs across PCCT and EICT systems may not be imperative while translating protocols, except when the signal to the detector is extremely low.

Duke Scholars

Author Steven Bache Radiology

Author Ehsan Abadi Radiology

Author Mridul Bhattarai  

Author Ehsan Samei Radiology