SU‐E‐I‐110

Do Reconstruction Parameters Affect CT‐Based Kidney Stone Volume Quantification?

L. Chen, J. Wang, X. Duan, Lifeng Yu, Shuai Leng, Cynthia H McCollough

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effects of reconstruction field‐of‐view (FOV), slice increment and kernel on the quantification of kidney stone volume. Methods: Three concentrations (200, 400 and 800 mg/cc) and two sizes (21.87 and 99.9 mm3) of hydroxyapatite (HA: Ca5(PO4)OH) cylinders were used to simulate kidney stones of 3 and 5 mm diameter, respectively). These were submerged in a 30 cm wide water phantom and scanned on a dual‐ source CT scanner operating in dual‐energy mode. Reconstruction was performed with a) FOVs from 50 to 300 mm at 50 mm interval; b) image reconstruction increments of 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6 mm; c) 6 recon kernels, from very smooth to medium sharp, all using a 0.6 mm image thickness. CT data were segmented and volumes calculated using volume‐rendered 3D images of each stone, commercial software (Analyze, version10.0) and fixed CT number thresholds (130, 250 and 550 HU for HA200, HA400 and HA800, respectively). Differences in volume between measured and reference values, normalized to the reference values were calculated. The range (maximum — minimum) in normalized volume differences were used to assess the overall influence of various reconstruction parameters. Results: Although normalized volume differences varied with cylinder concentration and size, the differences among FOVs were not substantial (<10.61%). The normalized volume differences among image increments were very small (< 2.45%), except for the lowest concentration/smallest size (differences up to 8.14%), where the smallest image increment was most accurate (differences < 3.02%). Very smooth kernels decreased volume accuracy by as much as 16.19%. Conclusions: Reducing reconstruction FOV did not increase accuracy of volume measurements. Overlap between reconstructed images was beneficial for volume measurement of low concentrations of HA (200 mg/cc) and small size (3 mm diameter) objects. Very smooth kernels were not suitable for volume measurement due to too much edge blurring.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3421
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Kidney Calculi
Reference Values
Computer-Assisted Image Processing
Durapatite
Software
Water

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐I‐110 : Do Reconstruction Parameters Affect CT‐Based Kidney Stone Volume Quantification? / Chen, L.; Wang, J.; Duan, X.; Yu, Lifeng; Leng, Shuai; McCollough, Cynthia H.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2011, p. 3421.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cc0e3aa413e74c42ac744ed909d95fb6,
title = "SU‐E‐I‐110: Do Reconstruction Parameters Affect CT‐Based Kidney Stone Volume Quantification?",
abstract = "Purpose: To investigate the effects of reconstruction field‐of‐view (FOV), slice increment and kernel on the quantification of kidney stone volume. Methods: Three concentrations (200, 400 and 800 mg/cc) and two sizes (21.87 and 99.9 mm3) of hydroxyapatite (HA: Ca5(PO4)OH) cylinders were used to simulate kidney stones of 3 and 5 mm diameter, respectively). These were submerged in a 30 cm wide water phantom and scanned on a dual‐ source CT scanner operating in dual‐energy mode. Reconstruction was performed with a) FOVs from 50 to 300 mm at 50 mm interval; b) image reconstruction increments of 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6 mm; c) 6 recon kernels, from very smooth to medium sharp, all using a 0.6 mm image thickness. CT data were segmented and volumes calculated using volume‐rendered 3D images of each stone, commercial software (Analyze, version10.0) and fixed CT number thresholds (130, 250 and 550 HU for HA200, HA400 and HA800, respectively). Differences in volume between measured and reference values, normalized to the reference values were calculated. The range (maximum — minimum) in normalized volume differences were used to assess the overall influence of various reconstruction parameters. Results: Although normalized volume differences varied with cylinder concentration and size, the differences among FOVs were not substantial (<10.61{\%}). The normalized volume differences among image increments were very small (< 2.45{\%}), except for the lowest concentration/smallest size (differences up to 8.14{\%}), where the smallest image increment was most accurate (differences < 3.02{\%}). Very smooth kernels decreased volume accuracy by as much as 16.19{\%}. Conclusions: Reducing reconstruction FOV did not increase accuracy of volume measurements. Overlap between reconstructed images was beneficial for volume measurement of low concentrations of HA (200 mg/cc) and small size (3 mm diameter) objects. Very smooth kernels were not suitable for volume measurement due to too much edge blurring.",
author = "L. Chen and J. Wang and X. Duan and Lifeng Yu and Shuai Leng and McCollough, {Cynthia H}",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1118/1.3611685",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "3421",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐I‐110

T2 - Do Reconstruction Parameters Affect CT‐Based Kidney Stone Volume Quantification?

AU - Chen, L.

AU - Wang, J.

AU - Duan, X.

AU - Yu, Lifeng

AU - Leng, Shuai

AU - McCollough, Cynthia H

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Purpose: To investigate the effects of reconstruction field‐of‐view (FOV), slice increment and kernel on the quantification of kidney stone volume. Methods: Three concentrations (200, 400 and 800 mg/cc) and two sizes (21.87 and 99.9 mm3) of hydroxyapatite (HA: Ca5(PO4)OH) cylinders were used to simulate kidney stones of 3 and 5 mm diameter, respectively). These were submerged in a 30 cm wide water phantom and scanned on a dual‐ source CT scanner operating in dual‐energy mode. Reconstruction was performed with a) FOVs from 50 to 300 mm at 50 mm interval; b) image reconstruction increments of 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6 mm; c) 6 recon kernels, from very smooth to medium sharp, all using a 0.6 mm image thickness. CT data were segmented and volumes calculated using volume‐rendered 3D images of each stone, commercial software (Analyze, version10.0) and fixed CT number thresholds (130, 250 and 550 HU for HA200, HA400 and HA800, respectively). Differences in volume between measured and reference values, normalized to the reference values were calculated. The range (maximum — minimum) in normalized volume differences were used to assess the overall influence of various reconstruction parameters. Results: Although normalized volume differences varied with cylinder concentration and size, the differences among FOVs were not substantial (<10.61%). The normalized volume differences among image increments were very small (< 2.45%), except for the lowest concentration/smallest size (differences up to 8.14%), where the smallest image increment was most accurate (differences < 3.02%). Very smooth kernels decreased volume accuracy by as much as 16.19%. Conclusions: Reducing reconstruction FOV did not increase accuracy of volume measurements. Overlap between reconstructed images was beneficial for volume measurement of low concentrations of HA (200 mg/cc) and small size (3 mm diameter) objects. Very smooth kernels were not suitable for volume measurement due to too much edge blurring.

AB - Purpose: To investigate the effects of reconstruction field‐of‐view (FOV), slice increment and kernel on the quantification of kidney stone volume. Methods: Three concentrations (200, 400 and 800 mg/cc) and two sizes (21.87 and 99.9 mm3) of hydroxyapatite (HA: Ca5(PO4)OH) cylinders were used to simulate kidney stones of 3 and 5 mm diameter, respectively). These were submerged in a 30 cm wide water phantom and scanned on a dual‐ source CT scanner operating in dual‐energy mode. Reconstruction was performed with a) FOVs from 50 to 300 mm at 50 mm interval; b) image reconstruction increments of 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6 mm; c) 6 recon kernels, from very smooth to medium sharp, all using a 0.6 mm image thickness. CT data were segmented and volumes calculated using volume‐rendered 3D images of each stone, commercial software (Analyze, version10.0) and fixed CT number thresholds (130, 250 and 550 HU for HA200, HA400 and HA800, respectively). Differences in volume between measured and reference values, normalized to the reference values were calculated. The range (maximum — minimum) in normalized volume differences were used to assess the overall influence of various reconstruction parameters. Results: Although normalized volume differences varied with cylinder concentration and size, the differences among FOVs were not substantial (<10.61%). The normalized volume differences among image increments were very small (< 2.45%), except for the lowest concentration/smallest size (differences up to 8.14%), where the smallest image increment was most accurate (differences < 3.02%). Very smooth kernels decreased volume accuracy by as much as 16.19%. Conclusions: Reducing reconstruction FOV did not increase accuracy of volume measurements. Overlap between reconstructed images was beneficial for volume measurement of low concentrations of HA (200 mg/cc) and small size (3 mm diameter) objects. Very smooth kernels were not suitable for volume measurement due to too much edge blurring.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024782515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024782515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3611685

DO - 10.1118/1.3611685

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 3421

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -