Skip to main content
Log in

Dual-energy CT: a phantom comparison of different platforms for abdominal imaging

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Evaluation of imaging performance across dual-energy CT (DECT) platforms, including dual-layer CT (DLCT), rapid-kVp-switching CT (KVSCT) and dual-source CT (DSCT).

Methods

A semi-anthropomorphic abdomen phantom was imaged on these DECT systems. Scans were repeated three times for CTDIvol levels of 10 mGy, 20 mGy, 30 mGy and different fat-simulating extension rings. Over the available range of virtual-monoenergetic images (VMI), noise as well as quantitative accuracy of hounsfield units (HU) and iodine concentrations were evaluated.

Results

For all VMI levels, HU values could be determined with high accuracy compared to theoretical values. For KVSCT and DSCT, a noise increase was observed towards lower VMI levels. A patient-size dependent increase in the uncertainty of quantitative iodine concentrations is observed for all platforms. For a medium patient size the iodine concentration root-mean-square deviation at 20 mGy is 0.17 mg/ml (DLCT), 0.30 mg/ml (KVSCT) and 0.77mg/ml (DSCT).

Conclusion

Noticeable performance differences are observed between investigated DECT systems. Iodine concentrations and VMI HUs are accurately determined across all DECT systems. KVSCT and DLCT deliver slightly more accurate iodine concentration values than DSCT for investigated scenarios. In DLCT, low-noise and high-image contrast at low VMI levels may help to increase diagnostic information in abdominal CT.

Key Points

• Current dual-energy CT platforms provide accurate, reliable quantitative information.

• Dual-energy CT cross-platform evaluation revealed noticeable performance differences between different systems.

• Dual-layer CT offers constant noise levels over the complete energy range.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DECT:

Dual-energy Computed Tomography

DLCT:

Dual-layer CT

DSCT :

Dual-source CT

HU :

Hounsfield Units

KVSCT :

Rapid kVp Switching CT

MD :

Mean Deviation

RMSD :

Root-mean-square Deviation

ROI :

Region of Interest

SD:

Standard Deviation

VMI:

Virtual Monoenergetic Image

References

  1. Conway JRW, Carragher NO, Timpson P (2014) Developments in preclinical cancer imaging : innovating the discovery of therapeutics. Nat Publ Gr 14:314–328

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kirchhof P, Sipido KR, Cowie MR et al (2014) The continuum of personalized cardiovascular medicine: a position paper of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J:3250–3257

  3. Rudin M, Weissleder R (2003) Molecular imaging in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:123–131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gatenby RA, Grove O, Gillies RJ (2013) Quantitative Imaging in Cancer Evolution and Ecology. Radiology 269:8–14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Patino M, Fuentes JM, Singh S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2015) Iterative Reconstruction Techniques in Abdominopelvic CT: Technical Concepts and Clinical Implementation. Am J Roentgenol 205:W19–W31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Noël PB, Renger B, Fiebich M et al (2013) Does Iterative Reconstruction Lower CT Radiation Dose: Evaluation of 15,000 Examinations. Chen C-T, editor. PLoS One Public Library Sci 8:e81141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sauter A, Koehler T, Fingerle AA et al (2016) Ultra Low Dose CT Pulmonary Angiography with Iterative Reconstruction. PLoS One 11:e0162716

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Willemink MJ, Leiner T, de Jong PA et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol 23:1632–1642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McCollough CH, Chen GH, Kalender W et al (2012) Achieving Routine Submillisievert CT Scanning: Report from the Summit on Management of Radiation Dose in CT. Radiology 264:567–580

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Muenzel D, Kabus S, Gramer B et al (2013) Dynamic CT Perfusion Imaging of the Myocardium: A Technical Note on Improvement of Image Quality. PLoS One8

  11. Wintermark M, Reichhart M, Thiran JP et al (2002) Prognostic accuracy of cerebral blood flow measurement by perfusion computed tomography, at the time of emergency room admission, in acute stroke patients. Ann Neurol 51:417–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fischer MA, Kartalis N, Grigoriadis A et al (2015) Perfusion computed tomography for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur Radiol 25:3123–3132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG (2015) Dual- and Multi-Energy CT: Principles, Technical Approaches, and Clinical Applications. Radiology 276:637–653

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Patino M, Prochowski A, Agrawal MD et al (2016) Material Separation Using Dual-Energy CT: Current and Emerging Applications. RadioGraphics Radiol Soc N Am 36:1087–1105

    Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson TRC, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ et al (2006) Dual-source CT cardiac imaging: Initial experience. Eur Radiol 16:1409–1415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol Springer-Verlag 16:256–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM, Krishnaraj A, Kalva SP, Sahani DV (2013) 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 23:351–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karcaaltincaba M, Aykut A (2010) Dual-energy CT revisited by multidetector ct: review of principles and clinical applications. Diagn Interv Radiol 17:181–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vlassenbroek A. Dual Layer CT (2011) In: Johnson T, Fink C, Schönberg SO, Reiser MF, editors. Dual Energy CT in Clinical Practice. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 21–34

  20. Hickethier DM, Byrtus T, Wybranski J et al (2017) Image quality evaluation of dual-layer spectral detector CT of the chest and comparison with conventional CT imaging. Eur J Radiol 52

  21. Altman A, Carmi R (2009) TU-E-210A-03: A Double-Layer Detector, Dual-Energy CT — Principles, Advantages and Applications. Med Phys Am Assoc Phys Med 36:2750

    Google Scholar 

  22. Agrawal MD, Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Sahani DV (2014) Oncologic Applications of Dual-Energy CT in the Abdomen. RadioGraphics 34:589–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Marin D, Boll DT, Mileto A, Nelson RC (2014) State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Radiology 271:327–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Flors L, Leiva-Salinas C, Norton PT, Patrie JT, Hagspiel KD (2013) Endoleak Detection After Endovascular Repair of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Using Dual-Source Dual-Energy CT: Suitable Scanning Protocols and Potential Radiation Dose Reduction. Am J Roentgenol 200:451–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chandarana H, Megibow AJ, Cohen BA et al (2011) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: Phantom study and preliminary experience with renal masses. Am J Roentgenol 196:693–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Almeida IP, Schyns LEJR, Ollers MC (2017) Dual-energy CT quantitative imaging: a comparison study between twin-beam and dual-source CT scanners 171–9

  27. Pelgrim GJ, van Hamersvelt RW, Willemink MJ et al. (2017) Accuracy of iodine quantification using dual energy CT in latest generation dual source and dual layer CT. Eur Radiol

  28. Koonce JD, Vliegenthart R, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography for the measurement of iodine concentration using cardiac CT protocols: validation in a phantom model. Eur Radiol Springer Berlin Heidelberg 24:512–518

    Google Scholar 

  29. ACR. ACR – AAPM Practice Parameter for Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses in Medical X-Ray Imaging [Internet]. Resolution 39. 2013 [cited 2017 Nov 10]. p. 1–9. Available from: http://www.acr.org/~/media/796DE35AA407447DB81CEB5612B4553D.pdf

  30. Kalender W, Perman W, Vetter J, Klotz E (1986) Evaluation of a prototype dual-energy computed tomographic apparatus. I. Phantom studies. Med Phys 13:334–339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Feuerlein S, Heye TJ, Bashir MR, Boll DT (2012) Iodine quantification using dual-energy multidetector computed tomography imaging: phantom study assessing the impact of iterative reconstruction schemes and patient habitus on accuracy. Investig Radiol 47:656–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Li Y, Shi G, Wang S, Wang S, Wu R (2013) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: Phantom study and preliminary experience with VX2 residual tumour in rabbits after radiofrequency ablation. Br J Radiol 86

  33. Euler A, Parakh A, Falkowski AL et al (2016) Initial Results of a Single-Source Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Technique Using a Split-Filter. Invest Radiol 1

  34. Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A et al (2006) Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: first experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol 16:2739–2747

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has received funding by the European Research Council (ERC, H2020, AdG 695045), the DFG Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz program, by the German Department of Education and Research (BMBF) under grant IMEDO (13GW0072C) and the TUM Institute for Advanced Study, funded by the German Excellence Initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thorsten Sellerer.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dushyant V. Sahani MD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because no human subjects were included in the study.

Ethical approval

Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because no animal subjects were included in the study.

Methodology

• experimental

• multicentre study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sellerer, T., Noël, P.B., Patino, M. et al. Dual-energy CT: a phantom comparison of different platforms for abdominal imaging. Eur Radiol 28, 2745–2755 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5238-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5238-5

Keywords

Navigation