Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Accuracy comparison of a 16 and 64 multidetector-row computed tomography scanner to image small high-density structures.
Invest Radiol. 2006 Nov; 41(11):781-92.IR

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The accuracy in imaging small high-density structures is compared for 16 and 64 multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) scanners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Phantom experiments and different quantification methods are used to establish size measurement accuracy, object signal, and image noise, for both MDCT systems.

RESULTS

At similar scanning doses, image noise is larger (approximately 55%) for the 64 MDCT compared with the 16 MDCT, leading to lower signal-to-noise ratios (approximately 28% for objects <2 mm). Object spread in the xy-plane is similar for both systems; while it is reduced along the z-axis (by approximately 0.18 mm) for the 64 MDCT. Measurement accuracy of the 64 MDCT is not significantly higher (P < 0.05) compared with the 16 MDCT when using a relative-threshold corresponding to 50% of the object maximum attenuation value. However, when using a fixed-threshold, interscanner and interprotocol measurement differences are statistically significant (eg, volume relative errors are reduced by approximately 17% on average for the 64 MDCT).

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement accuracy of the 16 and 64 MDCT scanners is not significantly different when using a 50% relative threshold. However, image noise is significantly larger for the 64 MDCT. Compared with a fixed-threshold based method, the 50% relative-threshold strongly reduces interscanner and interprotocol measurement dependency and improves accuracy.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Radiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.rollanohijarrubia@erasmusmc.nlNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17035868

Citation

Rollano-Hijarrubia, Empar, et al. "Accuracy Comparison of a 16 and 64 Multidetector-row Computed Tomography Scanner to Image Small High-density Structures." Investigative Radiology, vol. 41, no. 11, 2006, pp. 781-92.
Rollano-Hijarrubia E, Stokking R, Niessen WJ. Accuracy comparison of a 16 and 64 multidetector-row computed tomography scanner to image small high-density structures. Invest Radiol. 2006;41(11):781-92.
Rollano-Hijarrubia, E., Stokking, R., & Niessen, W. J. (2006). Accuracy comparison of a 16 and 64 multidetector-row computed tomography scanner to image small high-density structures. Investigative Radiology, 41(11), 781-92.
Rollano-Hijarrubia E, Stokking R, Niessen WJ. Accuracy Comparison of a 16 and 64 Multidetector-row Computed Tomography Scanner to Image Small High-density Structures. Invest Radiol. 2006;41(11):781-92. PubMed PMID: 17035868.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Accuracy comparison of a 16 and 64 multidetector-row computed tomography scanner to image small high-density structures. AU - Rollano-Hijarrubia,Empar, AU - Stokking,Rik, AU - Niessen,Wiro J, PY - 2006/10/13/pubmed PY - 2008/4/4/medline PY - 2006/10/13/entrez SP - 781 EP - 92 JF - Investigative radiology JO - Invest Radiol VL - 41 IS - 11 N2 - OBJECTIVES: The accuracy in imaging small high-density structures is compared for 16 and 64 multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom experiments and different quantification methods are used to establish size measurement accuracy, object signal, and image noise, for both MDCT systems. RESULTS: At similar scanning doses, image noise is larger (approximately 55%) for the 64 MDCT compared with the 16 MDCT, leading to lower signal-to-noise ratios (approximately 28% for objects <2 mm). Object spread in the xy-plane is similar for both systems; while it is reduced along the z-axis (by approximately 0.18 mm) for the 64 MDCT. Measurement accuracy of the 64 MDCT is not significantly higher (P < 0.05) compared with the 16 MDCT when using a relative-threshold corresponding to 50% of the object maximum attenuation value. However, when using a fixed-threshold, interscanner and interprotocol measurement differences are statistically significant (eg, volume relative errors are reduced by approximately 17% on average for the 64 MDCT). CONCLUSIONS: Measurement accuracy of the 16 and 64 MDCT scanners is not significantly different when using a 50% relative threshold. However, image noise is significantly larger for the 64 MDCT. Compared with a fixed-threshold based method, the 50% relative-threshold strongly reduces interscanner and interprotocol measurement dependency and improves accuracy. SN - 0020-9996 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17035868/Accuracy_comparison_of_a_16_and_64_multidetector_row_computed_tomography_scanner_to_image_small_high_density_structures_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000239319.86621.f5 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -