The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06635-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
To evaluate the technical performance of an ultra-high-resolution CT (UHRCT) system.
The physico-technical capabilities of a novel commercial UHRCT system were assessed and compared with those of a current-generation multi-detector (MDCT) system. The super-high-resolution (SHR) mode of the system uses 0.25 mm (at isocentre) detector elements (dels) in the in-plane and longitudinal directions, while the high-resolution (HR) mode bins two dels in the longitudinal direction. The normal-resolution (NR) mode bins dels 2 × 2, resulting in a del-size equivalent to that of the MDCT system. In general, standard procedures and phantoms were used to perform these assessments.
The UHRCT MTF (10% MTF 4.1 lp/mm) is twice as high as that of the MDCT (10% MTF 1.9 lp/mm), which is comparable to the MTF in the NR mode (10% MTF 1.7 lp/mm). The width of the slice sensitivity profile in the SHR mode (FWHM 0.45 mm) is about 60% of that of the MDCT (FWHM 0.77 mm). Uniformity and CT numbers are within the expected range. Noise in the high-resolution modes has a higher magnitude and higher frequency components compared with MDCT. Low-contrast visibility is lower for the NR, HR and SHR modes compared with MDCT, but about a 14%, for NR, and 23%, for HR and SHR, dose increase gives the same results.
HR and SHR mode scanning results in double the spatial resolution, with about a 23% increase in dose required to achieve the same low-contrast detectability.
• Resolution on UHRCT is up to twice as high as for the tested MDCT.
• With abdominal settings, UHRCT needs higher dose for the same low-contrast detectability as MDCT, but dose is still below achievable levels as defined by current diagnostic reference levels.
• The UHRCT system used in normal-resolution mode yields comparable resolution and noise characteristics as the MDCT system.
Hata A, Yanagawa M, Honda O et al (2018) Effect of matrix size on the image quality of ultra-high-resolution CT of the lung. Comparison of 512 × 512, 1024 × 1024, and 2048 × 2048. Acad Radiol 2048:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.11.017 CrossRef
Meijer FJA, Schuijf JD, de Vries J, Boogaarts HD, van der Woude WJ, Prokop M (2019) Ultra-high-resolution subtraction CT angiography in the follow-up of treated intracranial aneurysms. Insights Imaging 10:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0685-y
The Phantom Laboratory (2014) Catphan 500 and 600 Manual. Available via https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/fys/nedlagte-emner/FYS4760/h07/Catphan500-600manual.pdf
American College of Radiology (ACR) (2017) Computed tomography: quality control. Available via https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/NOINDEX/QCManuals/CT_QCManual.pdf
Hara T, Ichikawa K, Sanada S, Ida Y (2010) Image quality dependence on in-plane positions and directions for MDCT images. Eur J Radiol 75:114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.060 CrossRefPubMed
Roch P, Célier D, Dessaud C, Etard C (2018) Using diagnostic reference levels to evaluate the improvement of patient dose optimisation and the influence of recent technologies in radiography and computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 98:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002 CrossRefPubMed
- Physical evaluation of an ultra-high-resolution CT scanner
Luuk J. Oostveen
Kirsten L. Boedeker
Frank de Lange
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie
Meistgelesene Bücher aus der Radiologie
Mail Icon II