Current and Novel Techniques for Metal Artifact Reduction at CT: Practical Guide for Radiologists

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170102

The authors review the physical mechanisms of metal artifact generation, identify the strengths and limitations of individual techniques for metal artifact reduction, and describe optimal methods for frequently encountered clinical situations as a practical guide for radiologists.

Artifacts caused by metallic implants appear as dark and bright streaks at computed tomography (CT), which severely degrade the image quality and decrease the diagnostic value of the examination. When x-rays pass through a metal object, depending on its size and composition, different physical effects negatively affect the measurements in the detector, most notably the effects of photon starvation and beam hardening. To improve image quality and recover information about underlying structures, several artifact reduction methods have been introduced in modern CT systems. Projection-based metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms act in projection space and replace corrupted projections caused by metal with interpolation from neighboring uncorrupted projections. MAR algorithms primarily suppress artifacts that are due to photon starvation. The dual-energy CT technique is characterized by data acquisition at two different energy spectra. Dual-energy CT provides synthesized virtual monochromatic images at different photon energy (kiloelectron volt) levels, and virtual monochromatic images obtained at high kiloelectron volt levels are known to reduce the effects of beam hardening. In clinical practice, although MAR algorithms can be applied after image acquisition, the decision whether to apply dual-energy CT for the patient usually needs to be made before image acquisition. Radiologists should be more familiar with the clinical and technical features of each method and should be able to choose the optimal method according to the clinical situation.

©RSNA, 2018

References

  • 1. Barmeir E, Dubowitz B, Roffman M. Computed tomography in the assessment and planning of complicated total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand 1982;53(4):597–604.
  • 2. Kalender WA, Hebel R, Ebersberger J. Reduction of CT artifacts caused by metallic implants. Radiology 1987;164(2):576–577.
  • 3. Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA, et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multidetector CT. RadioGraphics 2007;27(3):791–803.
  • 4. De Man B, Nuyts J, Dupont P, Marchal G, Suetens P. Metal streak artifacts in x-ray computed tomography: a simulation study. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1999;46(3):691–696.
  • 5. Curry TI, Dowdey J, Murry R. Christensen’s physics of diagnostic radiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger, 1990; 61–69.
  • 6. Boas FE, Fleischmann D. Evaluation of two iterative techniques for reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography. Radiology 2011;259(3):894–902.
  • 7. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. RadioGraphics 2004;24(6):1679–1691.
  • 8. 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.
  • 9. Haramati N, Staron RB, Mazel-Sperling K, et al. CT scans through metal scanning technique versus hardware composition. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1994;18(6):429–434.
  • 10. Chang Y, Xu D, Zamyatin A. Metal artifact reduction algorithm for single energy and dual energy CT scans. In: Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, 2012; 3426–3429. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6551781/.
  • 11. Li H, Noel C, Chen H, et al. Clinical evaluation of a commercial orthopedic metal artifact reduction tool for CT simulations in radiation therapy. Med Phys 2012;39(12):7507–7517.
  • 12. Axente M, Paidi A, Von Eyben R, et al. Clinical evaluation of the iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm for CT simulation in radiotherapy. Med Phys 2015;42(3):1170–1183.
  • 13. Wagenaar D, van der Graaf ER, van der Schaaf A, Greuter MJ. Quantitative comparison of commercial and non-commercial metal artifact reduction techniques in computed tomography. PLoS One 2015;10(6):e0127932. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127932.
  • 14. Bazalova M, Beaulieu L, Palefsky S, Verhaegena F. Correction of CT artifacts and its influence on Monte Carlo dose calculations. Med Phys 2007;34(6):2119–2132.
  • 15. Zhang Y, Zhang L, Zhu XR, Lee AK, Chambers M, Dong L. Reducing metal artifacts in cone-beam CT images by preprocessing projection data. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(3):924–932.
  • 16. Xia D, Roeske JC, Yu L, Pelizzari CA, Mundt AJ, Pan X. A hybrid approach to reducing computed tomography metal artifacts in intracavitary brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2005;4(1):18–23.
  • 17. Glover GH, Pelc NJ. An algorithm for the reduction of metal clip artifacts in CT reconstructions. Med Phys 1981;8(6):799–807.
  • 18. Li H, Yu L, Liu X, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH. Metal artifact suppression from reformatted projections in multislice helical CT using dual-front active contours. Med Phys 2010;37(10):5155–5164.
  • 19. Yu L, Li H, Mueller J, et al. Metal artifact reduction from reformatted projections for hip prostheses in multislice helical computed tomography: techniques and initial clinical results. Invest Radiol 2009;44(11):691–696.
  • 20. Watzke O, Kalender WA. A pragmatic approach to metal artifact reduction in CT: merging of metal artifact reduced images. Eur Radiol 2004;14(5):849–856.
  • 21. Mahnken AH, Raupach R, Wildberger JE, et al. A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Invest Radiol 2003;38(12):769–775.
  • 22. Yazdi M, Gingras L, Beaulieu L. An adaptive approach to metal artifact reduction in helical computed tomography for radiation therapy treatment planning: experimental and clinical studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62(4):1224–1231.
  • 23. Yu H, Zeng K, Bharkhada DK, et al. A segmentation-based method for metal artifact reduction. Acad Radiol 2007;14(4):495–504.
  • 24. Meyer E, Raupach R, Lell M, Schmidt B, Kachelriess M. Normalized metal artifact reduction (NMAR) in computed tomography. Med Phys 2010;37(10):5482–5493.
  • 25. Prell D, Kyriakou Y, Beister M, Kalender WA. A novel forward projection-based metal artifact reduction method for flat-detector computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 2009;54(21):6575–6591.
  • 26. Han SC, Chung YE, Lee YH, Park KK, Kim MJ, Kim KW. Metal artifact reduction software used with abdominopelvic dual-energy CT of patients with metal hip prostheses: assessment of image quality and clinical feasibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(4):788–795.
  • 27. Andersson KM, Nowik P, Persliden J, Thunberg P, Norrman E. Metal artefact reduction in CT imaging of hip prostheses: an evaluation of commercial techniques provided by four vendors. Br J Radiol 2015;88(1052):20140473. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651384/pdf/bjr.20140473.pdf. Published May 27, 2015.
  • 28. Wang F, Xue H, Yang X, et al. Reduction of metal artifacts from alloy hip prostheses in computer tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2014;38(6):828–833.
  • 29. Huang JY, Kerns JR, Nute JL, et al. An evaluation of three commercially available metal artifact reduction methods for CT imaging. Phys Med Biol 2015;60(3):1047–1067.
  • 30. 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.
  • 31. Andersson KM, Norrman E, Geijer H, et al. Visual grading evaluation of commercially available metal artefact reduction techniques in hip prosthesis computed tomography. Br J Radiol 2016;89(1063):20150993. http://www.birpublications.org/doi/abs/10.1259/bjr.20150993?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed. Published April 28, 2016.
  • 32. Morsbach F, Bickelhaupt S, Wanner GA, Krauss A, Schmidt B, Alkadhi H. Reduction of metal artifacts from hip prostheses on CT images of the pelvis: value of iterative reconstructions. Radiology 2013;268(1):237–244.
  • 33. Meyer E, Raupach R, Lell M, Schmidt B, Kachelriess M. Frequency split metal artifact reduction (FSMAR) in computed tomography. Med Phys 2012;39(4):1904–1916.
  • 34. Lell MM, Meyer E, Kuefner MA, et al. Normalized metal artifact reduction in head and neck computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2012;47(7):415–421.
  • 35. Lell MM, Meyer E, Schmid M, et al. Frequency split metal artefact reduction in pelvic computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2013;23(8):2137–2145.
  • 36. Thomas C, Patschan O, Ketelsen D, et al. Dual-energy CT for the characterization of urinary calculi: in vitro and in vivo evaluation of a low-dose scanning protocol. Eur Radiol 2009;19(6):1553–1559.
  • 37. 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.
  • 38. Li B, Yadava G, Hsieh J. Quantification of head and body CTDIVOL of dual-energy x-ray CT with fast-kVp switching. Med Phys 2011;38(5):2595–2601.
  • 39. 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.
  • 40. Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M, et al. Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2007;17(6):1510–1517.
  • 41. Lin XZ, Miao F, Li JY, Dong HP, Shen Y, Chen KM. High-definition CT gemstone spectral imaging of the brain: initial results of selecting optimal monochromatic image for beam-hardening artifacts and image noise reduction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011;35(2):294–297.
  • 42. 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.
  • 43. 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.
  • 44. Krauss B, Grant KL, Schmidt BT, Flohr TG. The importance of spectral separation: an assessment of dual-energy spectral separation for quantitative ability and dose efficiency. Invest Radiol 2015;50(2):114–118.
  • 45. Tamm EP, Le O, Liu X, Layman RR, Cody DD, Bhosale PR. “How to” incorporate dual-energy imaging into a high volume abdominal imaging practice. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42(3):688–701.
  • 46. Chandra N, Langan D. Gemstone detector: dual energy imaging via fast kVp switching. In: Johnson TRC, Fink C, Schönberg SO, Reiser MF, eds. Dual energy CT in clinical practice. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2011; 35–41.
  • 47. Diekhoff T, Kiefer T, Stroux A, et al. Detection and characterization of crystal suspensions using single-source dual-energy computed tomography: a phantom model of crystal arthropathies. Invest Radiol 2015;50(4):255–260.
  • 48. Euler A, Parakh A, Falkowski AL, et al. Initial results of a single-source dual-energy computed tomography technique using a split-filter: assessment of image quality, radiation dose, and accuracy of dual-energy applications in an in vitro and in vivo study. Invest Radiol 2016;51(8):491–498.
  • 49. Almeida IP, Schyns LE, Öllers MC, et al. Dual-energy CT quantitative imaging: a comparison study between twin-beam and dual-source CT scanners. Med Phys 2017;44(1):171–179.
  • 50. Vlassenbroek A. Dual layer CT. In: Johnson TRC, Fink C, Schönberg SO, Reiser MF, eds. Dual energy CT in clinical practice. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2011; 21–34.
  • 51. Gabbai M, Leichter I, Mahgerefteh S, Sosna J. Spectral material characterization with dual-energy CT: comparison of commercial and investigative technologies in phantoms. Acta Radiol 2015;56(8):960–969.
  • 52. Wellenberg RH, Boomsma MF, van Osch JA, et al. Quantifying metal artefact reduction using virtual monochromatic dual-layer detector spectral CT imaging in unilateral and bilateral total hip prostheses. Eur J Radiol 2017;88:61–70.
  • 53. Agrawal MD, Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Sahani DV. Oncologic applications of dual-energy CT in the abdomen. RadioGraphics 2014;34(3):589–612.
  • 54. 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.
  • 55. Silva AC, Morse BG, Hara AK, Paden RG, Hongo N, Pavlicek W. Dual-energy (spectral) CT: applications in abdominal imaging. RadioGraphics 2011;31(4):1031–1046; discussion 1047–1050.
  • 56. 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.
  • 57. Yu L, Leng S, McCollough CH. Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(5 suppl):S9–S15.
  • 58. Zhou C, Zhao YE, Luo S, et al. Monoenergetic imaging of dual-energy CT reduces artifacts from implanted metal orthopedic devices in patients with factures. Acad Radiol 2011;18(10):1252–1257.
  • 59. Meinel FG, Bischoff B, Zhang Q, Bamberg F, Reiser MF, Johnson TR. Metal artifact reduction by dual-energy computed tomography using energetic extrapolation: a systematically optimized protocol. Invest Radiol 2012;47(7):406–414.
  • 60. 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.
  • 61. Yadava GK, Pal D, Hsieh J. Reduction of metal artifacts: beam hardening and photon starvation effects. In: Whiting BR, Hoeschen C. Kontos D, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2014—physics of medical imaging. Vol 9033. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2014; 90332V. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/9033/1/Reduction-of-metal-artifacts–beam-hardening-and-photon-starvation/10.1117/12.2043661.short. Published March 19, 2014.
  • 62. Kuchenbecker S, Faby S, Sawall S, Lell M, Kachelriess M. Dual energy CT: how well can pseudo-monochromatic imaging reduce metal artifacts? Med Phys 2015;42(2): 1023–1036.
  • 63. Kidoh M, Utsunomiya D, Oda S, et al. CT venography after knee replacement surgery: comparison of dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging and single-energy metal artifact reduction techniques on a 320-row CT scanner. Acta Radiol Open 2017;6(2):2058460117693463. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347276/pdf/10.1177_2058460117693463.pdf. Published February 1, 2017.
  • 64. 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.
  • 65. 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.
  • 66. Albrecht MH, Scholtz JE, Hüsers K, et al. Advanced image-based virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT angiography of the abdomen: optimization of kiloelectron volt settings to improve image contrast. Eur Radiol 2016;26(6):1863–1870.
  • 67. Meier A, Wurnig M, Desbiolles L, Leschka S, Frauenfelder T, Alkadhi H. Advanced virtual monoenergetic images: improving the contrast of dual-energy CT pulmonary angiography. Clin Radiol 2015;70(11):1244–1251.

Article History

Received: Apr 21 2017
Revision requested: Aug 11 2017
Revision received: Sept 3 2017
Accepted: Sept 21 2017
Published online: Mar 12 2018
Published in print: Mar 2018