Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 

 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » Malaysian Journals
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top Journal Cited
 » Top Article Cited
 » Journal Citation Statistics
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

Evaluation of the Quality of CT-Like Images Obtained Using a Commercial Flat Panel Detector System

Smyth, J.M., and Sutton, D.G., and Houston, J.G., (2006) Evaluation of the Quality of CT-Like Images Obtained Using a Commercial Flat Panel Detector System. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal, 2 (4).

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
3697Kb

Official URL: http://www.biij.org/2006/4/e48/e48.pdf

Affiliations

Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Scotland, Dept. of Medical Physics
Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Scotland, Dept. of Radiology

Abstract

Purpose: The development of flat panel detector technology has resulted in renewed interest in the possibility of generating CT-like images from rotational angiographic acquisitions. At least two commercial products now use cone beam reconstruction software in conjunction with flat panel detectors to produce such images. The purpose of the work presented here is to report on image quality obtained from one such system in objective and subjective terms and to compare it with the quality of images obtained from a modern multi-detector CT scanner. Method: The Image quality was assessed using a CATPHAN 500 model and an AAPM CT Performance Phantom model. Image noise, CT number accuracy, CT number consistency, Low Contrast Resolution, surface dose and Modulation Transfer Function were assessed for the flat panel detector and compared with results obtained from a 4 slice CT scanner. Results: As expected image quality obtained from the CT scanner was much better than from the flat panel detector. Low contrast resolution was much worse and the surface dose was higher for the flat panel detector than the CT scanner. There was an inaccuracy in CT number determination and the noise was greater by a factor of two or three. Limiting resolution was better on images from the CT scanner. Conclusion: The poor low contrast resolution from flat panel detector was expected given the expected resolution of ±10 Hounsfield Units. These systems should not be considered as diagnostic CT scanners. However, the remaining performance figures indicate that the CT-like images obtained from this type of equipment are of sufficient quality for at least some clinical applications, such as detection of brain haemorrhages in the vascular suite.

Item Type:Journal
Keywords:CT-like Images, Flat Panel Detector, Image Quality
Subjects:R Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing
ID Code:4560

1. Green NE, Chen J, Messenger JC, et al. Three dimensional vascular angiography. Curr Probl Cardiology 2004;29:104-42.

2. Granfors PR, Aufrichtig R. Performance of a 41X41-cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications. Med Phys 2000;27(6):1324-31.

3. Siewerdsen JH, Moseley DJ, Burch S, et al. Volume CT with a flat-panel detector on a mobile, isocentric C-arm: pre-clinical investigation in guidance of minimally invasive surgery. Med Phys 2005;32(1):241-54.

4. Heran NS, Song JK, Namba K, et al. The utility of DynaCT in Neuroendovascular procedures. Am J Nuurorad 2006;27:330-2.

5. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Catalogue of diagnostic x-ray spectra and other data. Report No. 78. 1997.

6. Platten D, Keat N, Lewis M, Edyvean S. MHRA Report 04011 - Four slice CT scanner comparison report version 11.

Repository Staff Only: item control page