Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: Summary of AAPM Task Group 233

Ehsan Samei, Donovan Bakalyar, Kirsten L. Boedeker, Samuel Brady, Jiahua Fan, Shuai Leng, Kyle J. Myers, Lucretiu M. Popescu, Juan Carlos Ramirez Giraldo, Frank Ranallo, Justin Solomon, Jay Vaishnav, Jia Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The rapid development and complexity of new x-ray computed tomography (CT) technologies and the need for evidence-based optimization of image quality with respect to radiation and contrast media dose call for an updated approach towards CT performance evaluation. Aims: This report offers updated testing guidelines for testing CT systems with an enhanced focus on the operational performance including iterative reconstructions and automatic exposure control (AEC) techniques. Materials and Methods: The report was developed based on a comprehensive review of best methods and practices in the scientific literature. The detailed methods include the assessment of 1) CT noise (magnitude, texture, nonuniformity, inhomogeneity), 2) resolution (task transfer function under varying conditions and its scalar reflections), 3) task-based performance (detectability, estimability), and 4) AEC performance (spatial, noise, and mA concordance of attenuation and exposure modulation). The methods include varying reconstruction and tube current modulation conditions, standardized testing protocols, and standardized quantities and metrology to facilitate tracking, benchmarking, and quantitative comparisons. Results: The methods, implemented in cited publications, are robust to provide a representative reflection of CT system performance as used operationally in a clinical facility. The methods include recommendations for phantoms and phantom image analysis. Discussion: In line with the current professional trajectory of the field toward quantitation and operational engagement, the stated methods offer quantitation that is more predictive of clinical performance than specification-based approaches. They can pave the way to approach performance testing of new CT systems not only in terms of acceptance testing (i.e., verifying a device meets predefined specifications), but also system commissioning (i.e., determining how the system can be used most effectively in clinical practice). Conclusion: We offer a set of common testing procedures that can be utilized towards the optimal clinical utilization of CT imaging devices, benchmarking across varying systems and times, and a basis to develop future performance-based criteria for CT imaging.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalMedical physics
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Tomography
Benchmarking
Noise
Literature
Equipment and Supplies
Task Performance and Analysis
Practice Guidelines
Contrast Media
Publications
X-Rays
Guidelines
Radiation
Technology

Keywords

  • acceptance testing
  • computed tomography
  • detectability
  • noise
  • quality control
  • resolution

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Samei, E., Bakalyar, D., Boedeker, K. L., Brady, S., Fan, J., Leng, S., ... Wang, J. (Accepted/In press). Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: Summary of AAPM Task Group 233. Medical physics. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13763

Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems : Summary of AAPM Task Group 233. / Samei, Ehsan; Bakalyar, Donovan; Boedeker, Kirsten L.; Brady, Samuel; Fan, Jiahua; Leng, Shuai; Myers, Kyle J.; Popescu, Lucretiu M.; Ramirez Giraldo, Juan Carlos; Ranallo, Frank; Solomon, Justin; Vaishnav, Jay; Wang, Jia.

In: Medical physics, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Samei, E, Bakalyar, D, Boedeker, KL, Brady, S, Fan, J, Leng, S, Myers, KJ, Popescu, LM, Ramirez Giraldo, JC, Ranallo, F, Solomon, J, Vaishnav, J & Wang, J 2019, 'Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: Summary of AAPM Task Group 233', Medical physics. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13763
Samei, Ehsan ; Bakalyar, Donovan ; Boedeker, Kirsten L. ; Brady, Samuel ; Fan, Jiahua ; Leng, Shuai ; Myers, Kyle J. ; Popescu, Lucretiu M. ; Ramirez Giraldo, Juan Carlos ; Ranallo, Frank ; Solomon, Justin ; Vaishnav, Jay ; Wang, Jia. / Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems : Summary of AAPM Task Group 233. In: Medical physics. 2019.
@article{70fed03a22f4466b85f2cfcf897938da,
title = "Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: Summary of AAPM Task Group 233",
abstract = "Background: The rapid development and complexity of new x-ray computed tomography (CT) technologies and the need for evidence-based optimization of image quality with respect to radiation and contrast media dose call for an updated approach towards CT performance evaluation. Aims: This report offers updated testing guidelines for testing CT systems with an enhanced focus on the operational performance including iterative reconstructions and automatic exposure control (AEC) techniques. Materials and Methods: The report was developed based on a comprehensive review of best methods and practices in the scientific literature. The detailed methods include the assessment of 1) CT noise (magnitude, texture, nonuniformity, inhomogeneity), 2) resolution (task transfer function under varying conditions and its scalar reflections), 3) task-based performance (detectability, estimability), and 4) AEC performance (spatial, noise, and mA concordance of attenuation and exposure modulation). The methods include varying reconstruction and tube current modulation conditions, standardized testing protocols, and standardized quantities and metrology to facilitate tracking, benchmarking, and quantitative comparisons. Results: The methods, implemented in cited publications, are robust to provide a representative reflection of CT system performance as used operationally in a clinical facility. The methods include recommendations for phantoms and phantom image analysis. Discussion: In line with the current professional trajectory of the field toward quantitation and operational engagement, the stated methods offer quantitation that is more predictive of clinical performance than specification-based approaches. They can pave the way to approach performance testing of new CT systems not only in terms of acceptance testing (i.e., verifying a device meets predefined specifications), but also system commissioning (i.e., determining how the system can be used most effectively in clinical practice). Conclusion: We offer a set of common testing procedures that can be utilized towards the optimal clinical utilization of CT imaging devices, benchmarking across varying systems and times, and a basis to develop future performance-based criteria for CT imaging.",
keywords = "acceptance testing, computed tomography, detectability, noise, quality control, resolution",
author = "Ehsan Samei and Donovan Bakalyar and Boedeker, {Kirsten L.} and Samuel Brady and Jiahua Fan and Shuai Leng and Myers, {Kyle J.} and Popescu, {Lucretiu M.} and {Ramirez Giraldo}, {Juan Carlos} and Frank Ranallo and Justin Solomon and Jay Vaishnav and Jia Wang",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/mp.13763",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems

T2 - Summary of AAPM Task Group 233

AU - Samei, Ehsan

AU - Bakalyar, Donovan

AU - Boedeker, Kirsten L.

AU - Brady, Samuel

AU - Fan, Jiahua

AU - Leng, Shuai

AU - Myers, Kyle J.

AU - Popescu, Lucretiu M.

AU - Ramirez Giraldo, Juan Carlos

AU - Ranallo, Frank

AU - Solomon, Justin

AU - Vaishnav, Jay

AU - Wang, Jia

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: The rapid development and complexity of new x-ray computed tomography (CT) technologies and the need for evidence-based optimization of image quality with respect to radiation and contrast media dose call for an updated approach towards CT performance evaluation. Aims: This report offers updated testing guidelines for testing CT systems with an enhanced focus on the operational performance including iterative reconstructions and automatic exposure control (AEC) techniques. Materials and Methods: The report was developed based on a comprehensive review of best methods and practices in the scientific literature. The detailed methods include the assessment of 1) CT noise (magnitude, texture, nonuniformity, inhomogeneity), 2) resolution (task transfer function under varying conditions and its scalar reflections), 3) task-based performance (detectability, estimability), and 4) AEC performance (spatial, noise, and mA concordance of attenuation and exposure modulation). The methods include varying reconstruction and tube current modulation conditions, standardized testing protocols, and standardized quantities and metrology to facilitate tracking, benchmarking, and quantitative comparisons. Results: The methods, implemented in cited publications, are robust to provide a representative reflection of CT system performance as used operationally in a clinical facility. The methods include recommendations for phantoms and phantom image analysis. Discussion: In line with the current professional trajectory of the field toward quantitation and operational engagement, the stated methods offer quantitation that is more predictive of clinical performance than specification-based approaches. They can pave the way to approach performance testing of new CT systems not only in terms of acceptance testing (i.e., verifying a device meets predefined specifications), but also system commissioning (i.e., determining how the system can be used most effectively in clinical practice). Conclusion: We offer a set of common testing procedures that can be utilized towards the optimal clinical utilization of CT imaging devices, benchmarking across varying systems and times, and a basis to develop future performance-based criteria for CT imaging.

AB - Background: The rapid development and complexity of new x-ray computed tomography (CT) technologies and the need for evidence-based optimization of image quality with respect to radiation and contrast media dose call for an updated approach towards CT performance evaluation. Aims: This report offers updated testing guidelines for testing CT systems with an enhanced focus on the operational performance including iterative reconstructions and automatic exposure control (AEC) techniques. Materials and Methods: The report was developed based on a comprehensive review of best methods and practices in the scientific literature. The detailed methods include the assessment of 1) CT noise (magnitude, texture, nonuniformity, inhomogeneity), 2) resolution (task transfer function under varying conditions and its scalar reflections), 3) task-based performance (detectability, estimability), and 4) AEC performance (spatial, noise, and mA concordance of attenuation and exposure modulation). The methods include varying reconstruction and tube current modulation conditions, standardized testing protocols, and standardized quantities and metrology to facilitate tracking, benchmarking, and quantitative comparisons. Results: The methods, implemented in cited publications, are robust to provide a representative reflection of CT system performance as used operationally in a clinical facility. The methods include recommendations for phantoms and phantom image analysis. Discussion: In line with the current professional trajectory of the field toward quantitation and operational engagement, the stated methods offer quantitation that is more predictive of clinical performance than specification-based approaches. They can pave the way to approach performance testing of new CT systems not only in terms of acceptance testing (i.e., verifying a device meets predefined specifications), but also system commissioning (i.e., determining how the system can be used most effectively in clinical practice). Conclusion: We offer a set of common testing procedures that can be utilized towards the optimal clinical utilization of CT imaging devices, benchmarking across varying systems and times, and a basis to develop future performance-based criteria for CT imaging.

KW - acceptance testing

KW - computed tomography

KW - detectability

KW - noise

KW - quality control

KW - resolution

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073980886&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073980886&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/mp.13763

DO - 10.1002/mp.13763

M3 - Article

C2 - 31408540

AN - SCOPUS:85073980886

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

ER -