Open AccessThe ultrafast, high‐pitch turbo FLASH mode of third‐generation dual‐source CT: Effect of different pitch and corresponding SFOV on image quality in a phantom study
Author(s) -
Zhou Yang,
Hu Lei,
Du Silin,
Jin Rui,
Li Wangjia,
Lv Fajin,
Zhang Zhiwei
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.13466
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , image quality , flash (photography) , contrast to noise ratio , nuclear medicine , turbo , materials science , physics , optics , computer science , image (mathematics) , medicine , artificial intelligence , automotive engineering , engineering
Abstract Purpose To investigate the effect of different pitches and corresponding scan fields of view (SFOVs) on the image quality in the ultrafast, high‐pitch turbo FLASH mode of the third‐generation dual‐source CT using an anthropomorphic phantom. Methods The phantom was scanned using the ultrafast, high‐pitch turbo FLASH protocols of the third‐generation dual‐source CT with the different pitches and corresponding SFOVs (pitches: 1.55 to 3.2 with increments of 0.1, SFOVs: 50 cm to 35.4 cm). The objective parameters such as the CT number, image noises, signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), and artifacts index (AI), and image features from the head, chest, and abdomen were compared between the CT images with a pitch of 1.55 and SFOV of Ø 50 cm and a pitch of 3.2 and SFOV of Ø 35.4 cm. Then, the 18 series of CT images of the head, chest, and abdomen were evaluated by three radiologists independently. Results The differences in the CT numbers were not statically significant between the CT images with a pitch of 1.55 and SFOV of Ø 50 cm and a pitch of 3.2 and SFOV of Ø 35.4 cm from most body parts and potential combinations ( p > 0.05), Most of the image noises and the AI from the images with the pitch of 1.55 were significantly lower than those with the pitch of 3.2 ( p < 0.05), and the SNR and CNR from the images with the pitch of 1.55 were higher than those with the pitch of 3.2. There were significant differences in the first‐order features and texture features of the head (59.3%, 28.3%), chest (66%, 35.7%), and abdomen (71.6%, 64.7%) ( p < 0.05). The subjective image quality was excellent when the pitch was less than 2.0 and gradually decreased with the increasing pitch. In addition, the image quality decreased significantly when the pitch was higher than 3.0 (all k ≥0.69), especially in the head and chest. Conclusions In the ultrafast, high‐pitch turbo FLASH mode of the third‐generation DSCT, increasing the pitch and lowering the corresponding SFOV will change the image features and cause more artifacts degrading the image quality. Specific to the clinical needs, decreasing the pitch not only can expand the SFOV but also can improve the image quality.