Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging: A cadaveric study

W. Zhou, J. I. Lane, M. L. Carlson, M. R. Bruesewitz, R. J. Witte, K. K. Koeller, L. J. Eckel, Rickey E. Carter, Cynthia H McCollough, Shuai Leng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluating abnormalities of the temporal bone requires high-spatial-resolution CT imaging. Our aim was to assess the performance of photon-counting-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions for temporal bone imaging and compare the results with those of energy-integrating-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom studies were conducted to quantify spatial resolution of the ultra-high-resolution mode on a prototype photon-counting-detector CT scanner and an energy-integrating-detector CT scanner that uses a comb filter. Ten cadaveric temporal bones were scanned on both systems with the radiation dose matched to that of the clinical examinations. Images were reconstructed using a sharp kernel, 0.6-mm (minimum) thickness for energy-integrating-detector CT, and 0.6- and 0.25-mm (minimum) thicknesses for photon-counting-detector CT. Image noise was measured and compared using adjusted 1-way ANOVA. Images were reviewed blindly by 3 neuroradiologists to assess the incudomallear joint, stapes footplate, modiolus, and overall image quality. The ranking results for each specimen and protocol were compared using the Friedman test. The Krippendorff was used for interreader agreement. RESULTS: Photon-counting-detector CT showed an increase of in-plane resolution compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. At the same thickness (0.6 mm), images from photon-counting-detector CT had significantly lower (P .001) image noise compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. Readers preferred the photon-counting-detector CT images to the energy-integrating-detector images for all 3 temporal bone structures. A moderate interreader agreement was observed with the Krippendorff 0.50. For overall image quality, photon-counting-detector CT image sets were ranked significantly higher than images from energy-integrating-detector CT (P .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated substantially better delineation of fine anatomy for the temporal bones scanned with the ultra-high-resolution mode of photon-counting-detector CT compared with the ultra-high-resolution mode of a commercial energy-integrating-detector CT scanner.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1733-1738
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology
Volume39
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2018

Fingerprint

Temporal Bone
Photons
Stapes
Comb and Wattles
Anatomy
Analysis of Variance
Joints
Radiation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging : A cadaveric study. / Zhou, W.; Lane, J. I.; Carlson, M. L.; Bruesewitz, M. R.; Witte, R. J.; Koeller, K. K.; Eckel, L. J.; Carter, Rickey E.; McCollough, Cynthia H; Leng, Shuai.

In: American Journal of Neuroradiology, Vol. 39, No. 9, 01.09.2018, p. 1733-1738.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zhou, W. ; Lane, J. I. ; Carlson, M. L. ; Bruesewitz, M. R. ; Witte, R. J. ; Koeller, K. K. ; Eckel, L. J. ; Carter, Rickey E. ; McCollough, Cynthia H ; Leng, Shuai. / Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging : A cadaveric study. In: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2018 ; Vol. 39, No. 9. pp. 1733-1738.
@article{9f6d5cdfeedd4f0a8b4e60ae72f43a67,
title = "Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging: A cadaveric study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluating abnormalities of the temporal bone requires high-spatial-resolution CT imaging. Our aim was to assess the performance of photon-counting-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions for temporal bone imaging and compare the results with those of energy-integrating-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom studies were conducted to quantify spatial resolution of the ultra-high-resolution mode on a prototype photon-counting-detector CT scanner and an energy-integrating-detector CT scanner that uses a comb filter. Ten cadaveric temporal bones were scanned on both systems with the radiation dose matched to that of the clinical examinations. Images were reconstructed using a sharp kernel, 0.6-mm (minimum) thickness for energy-integrating-detector CT, and 0.6- and 0.25-mm (minimum) thicknesses for photon-counting-detector CT. Image noise was measured and compared using adjusted 1-way ANOVA. Images were reviewed blindly by 3 neuroradiologists to assess the incudomallear joint, stapes footplate, modiolus, and overall image quality. The ranking results for each specimen and protocol were compared using the Friedman test. The Krippendorff was used for interreader agreement. RESULTS: Photon-counting-detector CT showed an increase of in-plane resolution compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. At the same thickness (0.6 mm), images from photon-counting-detector CT had significantly lower (P .001) image noise compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. Readers preferred the photon-counting-detector CT images to the energy-integrating-detector images for all 3 temporal bone structures. A moderate interreader agreement was observed with the Krippendorff 0.50. For overall image quality, photon-counting-detector CT image sets were ranked significantly higher than images from energy-integrating-detector CT (P .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated substantially better delineation of fine anatomy for the temporal bones scanned with the ultra-high-resolution mode of photon-counting-detector CT compared with the ultra-high-resolution mode of a commercial energy-integrating-detector CT scanner.",
author = "W. Zhou and Lane, {J. I.} and Carlson, {M. L.} and Bruesewitz, {M. R.} and Witte, {R. J.} and Koeller, {K. K.} and Eckel, {L. J.} and Carter, {Rickey E.} and McCollough, {Cynthia H} and Shuai Leng",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3174/ajnr.A5768",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "1733--1738",
journal = "American Journal of Neuroradiology",
issn = "0195-6108",
publisher = "American Society of Neuroradiology",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging

T2 - A cadaveric study

AU - Zhou, W.

AU - Lane, J. I.

AU - Carlson, M. L.

AU - Bruesewitz, M. R.

AU - Witte, R. J.

AU - Koeller, K. K.

AU - Eckel, L. J.

AU - Carter, Rickey E.

AU - McCollough, Cynthia H

AU - Leng, Shuai

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluating abnormalities of the temporal bone requires high-spatial-resolution CT imaging. Our aim was to assess the performance of photon-counting-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions for temporal bone imaging and compare the results with those of energy-integrating-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom studies were conducted to quantify spatial resolution of the ultra-high-resolution mode on a prototype photon-counting-detector CT scanner and an energy-integrating-detector CT scanner that uses a comb filter. Ten cadaveric temporal bones were scanned on both systems with the radiation dose matched to that of the clinical examinations. Images were reconstructed using a sharp kernel, 0.6-mm (minimum) thickness for energy-integrating-detector CT, and 0.6- and 0.25-mm (minimum) thicknesses for photon-counting-detector CT. Image noise was measured and compared using adjusted 1-way ANOVA. Images were reviewed blindly by 3 neuroradiologists to assess the incudomallear joint, stapes footplate, modiolus, and overall image quality. The ranking results for each specimen and protocol were compared using the Friedman test. The Krippendorff was used for interreader agreement. RESULTS: Photon-counting-detector CT showed an increase of in-plane resolution compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. At the same thickness (0.6 mm), images from photon-counting-detector CT had significantly lower (P .001) image noise compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. Readers preferred the photon-counting-detector CT images to the energy-integrating-detector images for all 3 temporal bone structures. A moderate interreader agreement was observed with the Krippendorff 0.50. For overall image quality, photon-counting-detector CT image sets were ranked significantly higher than images from energy-integrating-detector CT (P .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated substantially better delineation of fine anatomy for the temporal bones scanned with the ultra-high-resolution mode of photon-counting-detector CT compared with the ultra-high-resolution mode of a commercial energy-integrating-detector CT scanner.

AB - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluating abnormalities of the temporal bone requires high-spatial-resolution CT imaging. Our aim was to assess the performance of photon-counting-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions for temporal bone imaging and compare the results with those of energy-integrating-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom studies were conducted to quantify spatial resolution of the ultra-high-resolution mode on a prototype photon-counting-detector CT scanner and an energy-integrating-detector CT scanner that uses a comb filter. Ten cadaveric temporal bones were scanned on both systems with the radiation dose matched to that of the clinical examinations. Images were reconstructed using a sharp kernel, 0.6-mm (minimum) thickness for energy-integrating-detector CT, and 0.6- and 0.25-mm (minimum) thicknesses for photon-counting-detector CT. Image noise was measured and compared using adjusted 1-way ANOVA. Images were reviewed blindly by 3 neuroradiologists to assess the incudomallear joint, stapes footplate, modiolus, and overall image quality. The ranking results for each specimen and protocol were compared using the Friedman test. The Krippendorff was used for interreader agreement. RESULTS: Photon-counting-detector CT showed an increase of in-plane resolution compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. At the same thickness (0.6 mm), images from photon-counting-detector CT had significantly lower (P .001) image noise compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. Readers preferred the photon-counting-detector CT images to the energy-integrating-detector images for all 3 temporal bone structures. A moderate interreader agreement was observed with the Krippendorff 0.50. For overall image quality, photon-counting-detector CT image sets were ranked significantly higher than images from energy-integrating-detector CT (P .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated substantially better delineation of fine anatomy for the temporal bones scanned with the ultra-high-resolution mode of photon-counting-detector CT compared with the ultra-high-resolution mode of a commercial energy-integrating-detector CT scanner.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053063958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053063958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3174/ajnr.A5768

DO - 10.3174/ajnr.A5768

M3 - Article

C2 - 30093479

AN - SCOPUS:85053063958

VL - 39

SP - 1733

EP - 1738

JO - American Journal of Neuroradiology

JF - American Journal of Neuroradiology

SN - 0195-6108

IS - 9

ER -