Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015140857

The optimal iodine contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of virtual monoenergetic images with energy domain noise reduction was similar to or better than the CNR of single-energy CT images obtained with optimal tube potential.

Purpose

To determine the iodine contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for abdominal computed tomography (CT) when using energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic dual-energy (DE) CT images and to compare the CNR to that attained with single-energy CT at 80, 100, 120, and 140 kV.

Materials and Methods

This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board with waiver of informed consent. A syringe filled with diluted iodine contrast material was placed into 30-, 35-, and 45-cm-wide water phantoms and scanned with a dual-source CT scanner in both DE and single-energy modes with matched scanner output. Virtual monoenergetic images were generated, with energies ranging from 40 to 110 keV in 10-keV steps. A previously developed energy domain noise reduction algorithm was applied to reduce image noise by exploiting information redundancies in the energy domain. Image noise and iodine CNR were calculated. To show the potential clinical benefit of this technique, it was retrospectively applied to a clinical DE CT study of the liver in a 59-year-old male patient by using conventional and iterative reconstruction techniques. Image noise and CNR were compared for virtual monoenergetic images with and without energy domain noise reduction at each virtual monoenergetic energy (in kiloelectron volts) and phantom size by using a paired t test. CNR of virtual monoenergetic images was also compared with that of single-energy images acquired with 80, 100, 120, and 140 kV.

Results

Noise reduction of up to 59% (28.7 of 65.7) was achieved for DE virtual monoenergetic images by using an energy domain noise reduction technique. For the commercial virtual monoenergetic images, the maximum iodine CNR was achieved at 70 keV and was 18.6, 16.6, and 10.8 for the 30-, 35-, and 45-cm phantoms. After energy domain noise reduction, maximum iodine CNR was achieved at 40 keV and increased to 30.6, 25.4, and 16.5. These CNRs represented improvement of up to 64% (12.0 of 18.6) with the energy domain noise reduction technique. For single-energy CT at the optimal tube potential, iodine CNR was 29.1 (80 kV), 21.2 (80 kV), and 11.5 (100 kV). For patient images, 39% (24 of 61) noise reduction and 67% (0.74 of 1.10) CNR improvement were observed with the energy domain noise reduction technique when compared with standard filtered back-projection images.

Conclusion

Iodine CNR for adult abdominal CT may be maximized with energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic DE CT.

© RSNA, 2015

References

  • 1. Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, et al. Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol 2007;14(12):1441–1447. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M, et al. Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2007;17(6):1510–1517. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Graser A, Johnson TR, Bader M, et al. Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol 2008;43(2):112–119. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Qu M, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Leng S, et al. Dual-energy dual-source CT with additional spectral filtration can improve the differentiation of non-uric acid renal stones: an ex vivo phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(6):1279–1287. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Boll DT, Patil NA, Paulson EK, et al. Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone composition—pilot study. Radiology 2009;250(3):813–820. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Glazebrook KN, Guimarães LS, Murthy NS, et al. Identification of intraarticular and periarticular uric acid crystals with dual-energy CT: initial evaluation. Radiology 2011;261(2):516–524. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Nicolaou S, Yong-Hing CJ, Galea-Soler S, Hou DJ, Louis L, Munk P. Dual-energy CT as a potential new diagnostic tool in the management of gout in the acute setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(4):1072–1078. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Choi HK, Al-Arfaj AM, Eftekhari A, et al. Dual energy computed tomography in tophaceous gout. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68(10):1609–1612. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Desai MA, Peterson JJ, Garner HW, Kransdorf MJ. Clinical utility of dual-energy CT for evaluation of tophaceous gout. RadioGraphics 2011;31(5):1365–1375; discussion 1376–1377. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Watanabe Y, Uotani K, Nakazawa T, et al. Dual-energy direct bone removal CT angiography for evaluation of intracranial aneurysm or stenosis: comparison with conventional digital subtraction angiography. Eur Radiol 2009;19(4):1019–1024. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Uotani K, Watanabe Y, Higashi M, et al. Dual-energy CT head bone and hard plaque removal for quantification of calcified carotid stenosis: utility and comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Eur Radiol 2009;19(8):2060–2065. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Graser A, Johnson TR, Chandarana H, Macari M. Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 2009;19(1):13–23. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Zhang LJ, Peng J, Wu SY, et al. Liver virtual non-enhanced CT with dual-source, dual-energy CT: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 2010;20(9):2257–2264. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al. First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 2006;16(2):256–268. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Xu D, Langan D, Wu X, et al. Dual energy CT via fast kVp switching spectrum estimation. Proc SPIE 2009;7258:72583T. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Boll DT, Merkle EM, Paulson EK, Fleiter TR. Coronary stent patency: dual-energy multidetector CT assessment in a pilot study with anthropomorphic phantom. Radiology 2008;247(3):687–695. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Alvarez RE, Seppi E. A comparison of noise and dose in conventional and energy selective computed tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1979;26(2):2853–2856. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Hartman R, Kawashima A, Takahashi N, et al. Applications of dual-energy CT in urologic imaging: an update. Radiol Clin North Am 2012;50(2):191–205, v. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Yu L, Primak AN, Liu X, McCollough CH. Image quality optimization and evaluation of linearly mixed images in dual-source, dual-energy CT. Med Phys 2009;36(3):1019–1024. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Holmes DR 3rd, Fletcher JG, Apel A, et al. Evaluation of non-linear blending in dual-energy computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 2008;68(3):409–413. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Yu L, Leng S, McCollough CH. Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(5 Suppl):S9–S15. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TR. Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 2011;21(7):1424–1429. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Lee YH, Park KK, Song HT, Kim S, Suh JS. Metal artefact reduction in gemstone spectral imaging dual-energy CT with and without metal artefact reduction software. Eur Radiol 2012;22(6):1331–1340. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Pessis E, Campagna R, Sverzut JM, et al. Virtual monochromatic spectral imaging with fast kilovoltage switching: reduction of metal artifacts at CT. RadioGraphics 2013;33(2):573–583. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Lewis M, Reid K, Toms AP. Reducing the effects of metal artefact using high keV monoenergetic reconstruction of dual energy CT (DECT) in hip replacements. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42(2):275–282. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Yuan R, Shuman WP, Earls JP, et al. Reduced iodine load at CT pulmonary angiography with dual-energy monochromatic imaging: comparison with standard CT pulmonary angiography—a prospective randomized trial. Radiology 2012;262(1):290–297. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Goodsitt MM, Christodoulou EG, Larson SC. Accuracies of the synthesized monochromatic CT numbers and effective atomic numbers obtained with a rapid kVp switching dual energy CT scanner. Med Phys 2011;38(4):2222–2232. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Matsumoto K, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y, Ueno A, Yamada M, Kuribayashi S. Virtual monochromatic spectral imaging with fast kilovoltage switching: improved image quality as compared with that obtained with conventional 120-kVp CT. Radiology 2011;259(1):257–262. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Yu L, Christner JA, Leng S, Wang J, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH. Virtual monochromatic imaging in dual-source dual-energy CT: radiation dose and image quality. Med Phys 2011;38(12):6371–6379. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM, Krishnaraj A, Kalva SP, Sahani DV. Initial experience with single-source dual-energy CT abdominal angiography and comparison with single-energy CT angiography: image quality, enhancement, diagnosis and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2013;23(2):351–359. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Zhang D, Li X, Liu B. Objective characterization of GE discovery CT750 HD scanner: gemstone spectral imaging mode. Med Phys 2011;38(3):1178–1188. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32. Leng S, Yu L, Wang J, Fletcher JG, Mistretta CA, McCollough CH. Noise reduction in spectral CT: reducing dose and breaking the trade-off between image noise and energy bin selection. Med Phys 2011;38(9):4946–4957. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Mistretta CA, Wieben O, Velikina J, et al. Highly constrained backprojection for time-resolved MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006;55(1):30–40. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34. Johnson KM, Velikina J, Wu Y, Kecskemeti S, Wieben O, Mistretta CA. Improved waveform fidelity using local HYPR reconstruction (HYPR LR). Magn Reson Med 2008;59(3):456–462. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35. Leng S, Christner J, Yu L, McCollough C. Application of an energy domain noise reduction technique to virtual monoenergetic images: image quality assessment and comparison with single energy CT [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2012; 201. Google Scholar
  • 36. Yu L, Li H, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys 2010;37(1):234–243. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37. Yu L, Fletcher JG, Grant KL, et al. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in vascular and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(2):W297–W306. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38. Primak AN, Ramirez Giraldo JC, Liu X, Yu L, McCollough CH. Improved dual-energy material discrimination for dual-source CT by means of additional spectral filtration. Med Phys 2009;36(4):1359–1369. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39. Chen GH, Tang J, Leng S. Prior image constrained compressed sensing (PICCS): a method to accurately reconstruct dynamic CT images from highly undersampled projection data sets. Med Phys 2008;35(2):660–663. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40. Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Trzasko J, Leng S, Yu L, Manduca A, McCollough CH. Nonconvex prior image constrained compressed sensing (NCPICCS): theory and simulations on perfusion CT. Med Phys 2011;38(4):2157–2167. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 41. Liu X, Primak AN, Yu L, et al. Quantitative evaluation of noise reduction algorithms for very low dose renal CT perfusion imaging. In: Samei E, Hsieh J, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2009—physics of medical imaging. Vol 7258. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 2009; 72581T. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received April 10, 2014; revision requested May 19; revision received October 24; accepted December 2; final version accepted January 15, 2015.
Published online: Apr 10 2015
Published in print: Aug 2015