Cargando…
Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7248011/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32072253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06704-0 |
_version_ | 1783538276303372288 |
---|---|
author | Miyata, Tomo Yanagawa, Masahiro Hata, Akinori Honda, Osamu Yoshida, Yuriko Kikuchi, Noriko Tsubamoto, Mitsuko Tsukagoshi, Shinsuke Uranishi, Ayumi Tomiyama, Noriyuki |
author_facet | Miyata, Tomo Yanagawa, Masahiro Hata, Akinori Honda, Osamu Yoshida, Yuriko Kikuchi, Noriko Tsubamoto, Mitsuko Tsukagoshi, Shinsuke Uranishi, Ayumi Tomiyama, Noriyuki |
author_sort | Miyata, Tomo |
collection | PubMed |
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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-06704-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7248011 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72480112020-06-03 Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT Miyata, Tomo Yanagawa, Masahiro Hata, Akinori Honda, Osamu Yoshida, Yuriko Kikuchi, Noriko Tsubamoto, Mitsuko Tsukagoshi, Shinsuke Uranishi, Ayumi Tomiyama, Noriyuki Eur Radiol Chest 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-06704-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-02-18 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7248011/ /pubmed/32072253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06704-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Chest Miyata, Tomo Yanagawa, Masahiro Hata, Akinori Honda, Osamu Yoshida, Yuriko Kikuchi, Noriko Tsubamoto, Mitsuko Tsukagoshi, Shinsuke Uranishi, Ayumi Tomiyama, Noriyuki Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT |
title | Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT |
title_full | Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT |
title_fullStr | Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT |
title_short | Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT |
title_sort | influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution ct vs. conventional high-resolution ct |
topic | Chest |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7248011/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32072253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06704-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT miyatatomo influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT yanagawamasahiro influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT hataakinori influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT hondaosamu influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT yoshidayuriko influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT kikuchinoriko influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT tsubamotomitsuko influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT tsukagoshishinsuke influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT uranishiayumi influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct AT tomiyamanoriyuki influenceoffieldofviewsizeonimagequalityultrahighresolutionctvsconventionalhighresolutionct |