Premium
Energy‐integrating‐detector multi‐energy CT: Implementation and a phantom study
Author(s) -
Ren Liqiang,
Allmendinger Thomas,
Halaweish Ahmed,
Schmidt Bernhard,
Flohr Thomas,
McCollough Cynthia H.,
Yu Lifeng
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.14943
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , scanner , nuclear medicine , materials science , beam (structure) , flat panel detector , detector , digital enhanced cordless telecommunications , optics , physics , medicine , computer science , telecommunications , wireless
Purpose Multi‐energy computed tomography (MECT) has a great potential to enable many novel clinical applications such as simultaneous multi‐contrast imaging. The purpose of this study was to implement triple‐beam MECT on a traditional energy‐integrating‐detector (EID) CT platform (EID‐MECT). Methods This was accomplished by mounting a z‐axis split‐filter (0.05 mm Au, 0.6 mm Sn) on Tube A of a dual‐source EID CT scanner. With the two split x‐ray beams from Tube A and the third beam from Tube B, three beams with different x‐ray spectra can be simultaneously acquired. With Tube B operated at 70 or 80 kV and Tube A at 120 or 140 kV, four different triple‐beam configurations were calibrated for MECT measurements: 70/Au120/Sn120, 80/Au120/Sn120, 70/Au140/Sn140, and 80/Au140/Sn140 kV. Iodine (I), gadolinium (Gd), bismuth (Bi) samples, and their mixtures were prepared for 2 three‐material‐decomposition tasks and 1 four‐material‐decomposition task. For each task, samples were placed in a water phantom and scanned using each of the four triple‐beam configurations. For comparison, the same phantom was also scanned using three other dual‐energy CT (DECT) or MECT technologies: twin‐beam DECT (TB‐DECT), dual‐source DECT (DS‐DECT), and photon‐counting‐detector CT (PCD‐CT), all with optimal x‐ray spectrum settings and at equal volume CT dose index (CTDIvol). The phantom for four‐material decomposition (I/Gd/Bi/Water imaging) was scanned using the PCD‐CT only (140 kV with 25, 50, 75, and 90 keV). Image‐based material decomposition was performed to acquire material‐specific images, on which the mean basis material concentrations and noise levels were measured and compared across all triple‐beam configurations in EID‐MECT and various DECT/MECT systems. Results The optimal triple‐beam configuration was task‐dependent with 70/Au120/Sn120, 70/Au140/Sn140, and 70/Au120/Sn120 kV for I/Gd/Water, I/Bi/Water, and I/Gd/Bi/Water material decomposition tasks, respectively. At equal radiation dose level, EID‐MECT provided comparable or better quantification accuracy in material‐specific images for all three material decomposition tasks, compared to EID‐based DECT and PCD‐CT systems. In terms of noise level comparison, EID‐MECT‐derived material‐specific images showed lower noise levels than TB‐DECT and DS‐DECT, but slightly higher than that from PCD‐CT in I/Gd/Water imaging. For I/Bi/Water imaging, EID‐MECT showed a comparable noise level to DS‐DECT, and a much lower noise level than TB‐DECT and PCD‐CT in all material‐specific images. For the four‐material decomposition task involving I/Gd/Bi/Water, the bismuth‐specific image derived from EID‐MECT was slightly noisier, but both iodine‐ and gadolinium‐specific images showed much lower noise levels in comparison to PCD‐CT. Conclusions For the first time, an EID‐based MECT system that can simultaneously acquire three x‐ray spectra measurements was implemented on a clinical scanner, which demonstrated comparable or better imaging performance than existing DECT and MECT systems.