Cargando…

Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models

The aim of this work was to quantitate differences in image quality between two GE CT scanner models — the LightSpeed VCT (“VCT”) and Discovery HD750 (“HD”) — based upon feedback from radiologists at our institution. First, 3 yrs of daily QC images of the manufacturer‐provided QC phantom from 10 sca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bache, Steven T., Stauduhar, Paul J., Liu, Xinming, Loyer, Evelyne M., John, Rong X.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689956/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28300384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12050
_version_ 1783279495927562240
author Bache, Steven T.
Stauduhar, Paul J.
Liu, Xinming
Loyer, Evelyne M.
John, Rong X.
author_facet Bache, Steven T.
Stauduhar, Paul J.
Liu, Xinming
Loyer, Evelyne M.
John, Rong X.
author_sort Bache, Steven T.
collection PubMed
description The aim of this work was to quantitate differences in image quality between two GE CT scanner models — the LightSpeed VCT (“VCT”) and Discovery HD750 (“HD”) — based upon feedback from radiologists at our institution. First, 3 yrs of daily QC images of the manufacturer‐provided QC phantom from 10 scanners — five of each model — were analyzed for both noise magnitude, measured as CT‐number standard deviation, and noise power spectrum within the uniform water section. The same phantom was then scanned on four of each model and analyzed for low contrast detectability (LCD) using a built‐in LCD tool at the scanner console. An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned using the same eight scanners. A slice within the abdomen section was chosen and three ROIs were placed in regions representing liver, stomach, and spleen. Both standard deviation of CT‐number and LCD value was calculated for each image. Noise magnitude was 8.5% higher in HD scanners compared to VCT scanners. An associated increase in the magnitude of the noise power spectra were also found, but both peak and mean NPS frequency were not different between the two models. VCT scanners outperformed HD scanners with respect to LCD by an average of 13.1% across all scanners and phantoms. Our results agree with radiologist feedback, and necessitate a closer look at our body CT protocols among different scanner models at our institution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5689956
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56899562018-04-02 Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models Bache, Steven T. Stauduhar, Paul J. Liu, Xinming Loyer, Evelyne M. John, Rong X. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging The aim of this work was to quantitate differences in image quality between two GE CT scanner models — the LightSpeed VCT (“VCT”) and Discovery HD750 (“HD”) — based upon feedback from radiologists at our institution. First, 3 yrs of daily QC images of the manufacturer‐provided QC phantom from 10 scanners — five of each model — were analyzed for both noise magnitude, measured as CT‐number standard deviation, and noise power spectrum within the uniform water section. The same phantom was then scanned on four of each model and analyzed for low contrast detectability (LCD) using a built‐in LCD tool at the scanner console. An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned using the same eight scanners. A slice within the abdomen section was chosen and three ROIs were placed in regions representing liver, stomach, and spleen. Both standard deviation of CT‐number and LCD value was calculated for each image. Noise magnitude was 8.5% higher in HD scanners compared to VCT scanners. An associated increase in the magnitude of the noise power spectra were also found, but both peak and mean NPS frequency were not different between the two models. VCT scanners outperformed HD scanners with respect to LCD by an average of 13.1% across all scanners and phantoms. Our results agree with radiologist feedback, and necessitate a closer look at our body CT protocols among different scanner models at our institution. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5689956/ /pubmed/28300384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12050 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Bache, Steven T.
Stauduhar, Paul J.
Liu, Xinming
Loyer, Evelyne M.
John, Rong X.
Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models
title Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models
title_full Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models
title_fullStr Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models
title_full_unstemmed Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models
title_short Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models
title_sort quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two ct scanner models
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689956/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28300384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12050
work_keys_str_mv AT bachestevent quantitationofclinicalfeedbackonimagequalitydifferencesbetweentwoctscannermodels
AT stauduharpaulj quantitationofclinicalfeedbackonimagequalitydifferencesbetweentwoctscannermodels
AT liuxinming quantitationofclinicalfeedbackonimagequalitydifferencesbetweentwoctscannermodels
AT loyerevelynem quantitationofclinicalfeedbackonimagequalitydifferencesbetweentwoctscannermodels
AT johnrongx quantitationofclinicalfeedbackonimagequalitydifferencesbetweentwoctscannermodels