JBiSE  Vol.7 No.6 , May 2014
Does Resampled Image Data Offer Quantitative Image Quality Benefit for Pediatric CT?
ABSTRACT
Acquiring CT images with thin slices can improve resolution and detectability, but cause an increase in the image noise. To compensate for the additional image noise, the kVp or mA can be increased, which carries a dose penalty to the patient. We investigate the image quality achieved in MPR images reformatted from different slice thicknesses 0.625 mm and 5 mm, to determine if a thicker slice could be resampled to smaller thickness with minimal loss of image information. Catphan?600 phantom was imaged using selected kVp/mA settings (80 kVp/250 mA, 100 kVp/ 150 mA and 120 kVp/200 mA) to generate slices with thicknesses of 0.625 mm and 5 mm using a GE Discovery HD750 64-slice CT scanner to investigate the impact of the acquisition slice thickness on the overall image quality in MPRs. Measurements of image noise, uniformity, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), low contrast detectability and limiting spatial resolution were performed on axial and coronal multiplanar reformatted images (MPRs). Increased noise, reduced contrast-to-noise ratio, and improved limiting spatial resolution and low contrast detection were observed in 2 mm coronal MPRs generated with 0.625 mm thin slices when compared to the MPRs from 5 mm thick slices. If the 2 mm coronal MPRs acquired with 5 mm slices are resampled to 0.6 mm slice thickness, the reductions in limiting resolution and low contrast detection are compensated, although with reduced uniformity and increased image noise. Thick slice image acquisitions yield better CNR and less noise in the images, whereas thin slices exhibited improved spatial resolution and low contrast detectability. Retrospectively resampling into thinner slices before obtaining the coronal MPRs provided a balance between image smoothness and identifying fine image detail. Which approach provides the optimal image quality may also depend on the imaging task, size and composition of the features of interest, and radiologist preference.

Cite this paper
Ford, N. , Protik, A. , Babyn, P. and Thomas, K. (2014) Does Resampled Image Data Offer Quantitative Image Quality Benefit for Pediatric CT?. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 7, 343-350. doi: 10.4236/jbise.2014.76036.
References
[1]   Brenner, D., Elliston, C., Hall, E., et al. (2001) Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT. American Journal of Roentgenology, 176, 289-296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289

[2]   Valentin, J. (2007) Managing Patient Dose in Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT). ICRP Publication, 102. Annals of ICRP, 37, 1-79.

[3]   Dalrymple, N.C., Prasad, S.R., Freckleton, M.W., et al. (2005) Informatics in Radiology (in-foRAD): Introduction to the Language of Three-Dimensional Imaging with Multidetector CT. Radiographics, 25, 1409-1428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.255055044

[4]   Goldman, L.W. (2007) Principles of CT: Radiation Dose and Image Quality. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 35, 213-225.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.106.037846

[5]   Kalra, M.K., Maher Mm Fau-D’Souza, R., D’Souza R Fau-Saini, S., et al. (2004) Multidetector Computed Tomography Technology: Current Status and Emerging Developments. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 28, S2-S6.

[6]   Boedeker, K.L., Cooper, V.N. and McNitt-Gray, M.F. (2007) Application of the Noise Power Spectrum in Modern Diagnostic MDCT: Part I. Measurement of Noise Power Spectra and Noise Equivalent Quanta. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 52, 4027-4046.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/14/002

[7]   Wedegartner, U., Lorenzen, M., Nagel, H.D., et al. (2004) Image Quality of Thin- and Thick-Slice MSCT Reconstructions in Low-Contrast Objects (Liver Lesions) with Equal Doses. Rofo, 176, 1676-1682.

[8]   Glover, G.H. and Pelc, N.J. (1980) Nonlinear Partial Volume Artifacts in X-Ray Computed Tomography. Medical Physics, 7, 238-248.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.594678

[9]   Plewes, D.B. and Dean, P.B. (1981) The Influence of Partial Volume Averaging on Sphere Detectability in Computed Tomography. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 26, 913-919.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/26/5/011

[10]   Protik, A., Thomas, K., Babyn, P. and Ford, N.L. (2012) Phantom Study of the Impact of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASiRTM) on Image Quality for Paediatric Computed Tomography. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 5, 793-806.

[11]   Sorantin, E., Weissensteiner, S., Hasenburger, G., et al. (2013) CT in Children—Dose Protection and General Considerations When Planning a CT in a Child. European Journal of Radiology, 82, 1043-1049.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.11.041

[12]   Lell, M.M., May, M., Deak, P., et al. (2011) High-Pitch Spiral Computed Tomography: Effect on Image Quality and Radiation Dose in Pediatric Chest Computed Tomography. Investigative Radiology, 46, 116-123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181f33b1d

 
 
Top