Premium
Technical Note: A simple method for measuring the slice sensitivity profile of iteratively reconstructed CT images using a non‐slanted edge plane
Author(s) -
Narita Akihiro,
Ohkubo Masaki,
Fukaya Takahiro,
Noto Yoshiyuki
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1002/mp.14668
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , plane (geometry) , enhanced data rates for gsm evolution , projection (relational algebra) , iterative reconstruction , perpendicular , mathematics , optics , sensitivity (control systems) , physics , geometry , nuclear medicine , artificial intelligence , algorithm , computer science , medicine , electronic engineering , engineering
Purpose A method for measuring the slice sensitivity profile (SSP) of computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms was reported by the AAPM Task Group 233 (TG233). In this method, the phantom plane edge is slightly slanted with respect to the scan plane to obtain a composite oversampled edge‐spread function (ESF). However, it is expected that a fine‐sampled ESF can be obtained directly from images reconstructed with a small slice increment without slanting the edge plane. This study aimed to investigate the validity of using a non‐slanted edge plane. Methods In the proposed non‐slanted edge method, the phantom was positioned so that the plane edge was perpendicular to the longitudinal z ‐axis, and images were reconstructed with a 1‐mm slice thickness and 0.1‐mm increment. The mean CT value was obtained in each slice and plotted as a function of slice position along the z ‐axis, thereby generating the ESF. The SSP was calculated from the ESF by differentiation. In the TG 233‐recommended slanted edge method, the SSP was obtained by following the procedure described in the TG233 report. To validate the methodology, we first used filtered back projection (FBP) images to compare SSPs obtained using the non‐slanted edge method, slanted edge method, and a standard method using a high‐contrast thin object (coin). Next, for two types of IR algorithms, we compared the SSPs obtained using the non‐slanted and slanted edge methods. Results For the FBP images, the SSP measured using the non‐slanted edge method agreed well with SSPs measured using the coin and slanted edge methods. For the IR images, the SSPs measured using the non‐slanted and slanted edge methods showed good agreement. Conclusions The non‐slanted edge method was demonstrated to be valid. The simplicity and practicality of the method allows routine and accurate determination of the SSP.