Variation in Hounsfield Unit Calculated Using Dual-energy Computed Tomography: Comparison of Dual-layer, Dual-source, and Fast Kilovoltage Switching Technique

Overview

Journal Radiol Phys Technol

Specialties Biophysics
Biotechnology
Radiology

Date 2024 May 3

PMID 38700638

Authors

Shingo Ohira

Junji Mochizuki

Tatsunori Niwa

Kazuyuki Endo

Masanari Minamitani

Hideomi Yamashita

Atsuto Katano

Toshikazu Imae

Teiji Nishio

Masahiko Koizumi

Keiichi Nakagawa

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to investigate the variation in Hounsfield unit (HU) values calculated using dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) scanners. A tissue characterization phantom inserting 16 reference materials were scanned three times using DECT scanners [dual-layer CT (DLCT), dual-source CT (DSCT), and fast kilovoltage switching CT (FKSCT)] changing scanning conditions. The single-energy CT images (120 or 140 kVp), and virtual monochromatic images at 70 keV (VMI) and 140 keV (VMI) were reconstructed, and the HU values of each reference material were measured. The difference in HU values was larger when the phantom was scanned using the half dose with wrapping with rubber (strong beam-hardening effect) compared with the full dose without the rubber (reference condition), and the difference was larger as the electron density increased. For SECT, the difference in HU values against the reference condition measured by the DSCT (3.2 ± 5.0 HU) was significantly smaller (p < 0.05) than that using DLCT with 120 kVp (22.4 ± 23.8 HU), DLCT with 140 kVp (11.4 ± 12.8 HU), and FKSCT (13.4 ± 14.3 HU). The respective difference in HU values in the VMI and VMI measured using the DSCT (10.8 ± 17.1 and 3.5 ± 4.1 HU) and FKSCT (11.5 ± 21.8 and 5.5 ± 10.4 HU) were significantly smaller than those measured using the DLCT (23.1 ± 27.5 and 12.4 ± 9.4 HU) and DLCT (22.3 ± 28.6 and 13.1 ± 11.4 HU). The HU values and the susceptibility to beam-hardening effects varied widely depending on the DECT scanners.

References

Cropp R, Seslija P, Tso D, Thakur Y . Scanner and kVp dependence of measured CT numbers in the ACR CT phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013; 14(6):4417. PMC: 5714621. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4417. View

Ohira S, Washio H, Yagi M, Karino T, Nakamura K, Ueda Y . Estimation of electron density, effective atomic number and stopping power ratio using dual-layer computed tomography for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med. 2018; 56:34-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.11.008. View

Mutic S, Palta J, Butker E, Das I, Huq M, Loo L . Quality assurance for computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 66. Med Phys. 2003; 30(10):2762-92. DOI: 10.1118/1.1609271. View

Ohira S, Wada K, Hirata T, Kanayama N, Ikawa T, Karino T . Clinical implementation of contrast-enhanced four-dimensional dual-energy computed tomography for target delineation of pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2018; 129(1):105-111. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.01.012. View

Vaniqui A, Schyns L, Almeida I, van der Heyden B, van Hoof S, Verhaegen F . The impact of dual energy CT imaging on dose calculations for pre-clinical studies. Radiat Oncol. 2017; 12(1):181. PMC: 5696722. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0922-9. View

Barrett J, Keat N . Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004; 24(6):1679-91. DOI: 10.1148/rg.246045065. View

Ge T, Liao R, Medrano M, Politte D, Whiting B, F Williamson J . Motion-compensated scheme for sequential scanned statistical iterative dual-energy CT reconstruction. Phys Med Biol. 2023; 68(14). PMC: 10482127. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acdf38. View

Cattaneo G, Passoni P, Sangalli G, Slim N, Longobardi B, Mancosu P . Internal target volume defined by contrast-enhanced 4D-CT scan in unresectable pancreatic tumour: evaluation and reproducibility. Radiother Oncol. 2010; 97(3):525-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.08.007. View

Ohira S, Yagi M, Iramina H, Karino T, Washio H, Ueda Y . Treatment planning based on water density image generated using dual-energy computed tomography for pancreatic cancer with contrast-enhancing agent: Phantom and clinical study. Med Phys. 2018; 45(11):5208-5217. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13180. View

10.

Pettersson E, Back A, Bjork-Eriksson T, Lindencrona U, Petruson K, Thilander-Klang A . Structure delineation in the presence of metal - A comparative phantom study using single and dual-energy computed tomography with and without metal artefact reduction. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 9:43-49. PMC: 7807554. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.01.001. View

11.

Chen Y, Zhong J, Wang L, Shi X, Chang R, Fan J . Multivendor Comparison of Quantification Accuracy of Iodine Concentration and Attenuation Measurements by Dual-Energy CT: A Phantom Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022; 219(5):827-839. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.22.27753. View

12.

Yagi M, Ueguchi T, Koizumi M, Ogata T, Yamada S, Takahashi Y . Gemstone spectral imaging: determination of CT to ED conversion curves for radiotherapy treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013; 14(5):173-86. PMC: 5714581. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i5.4335. View

13.

Noda Y, Goshima S, Miyoshi T, Kawada H, Kawai N, Tanahashi Y . Assessing Chemotherapeutic Response in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Histogram Analysis of Iodine Concentration and CT Number in Single-Source Dual-Energy CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211(6):1221-1226. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.19791. View

14.

Ohira S, Karino T, Ueda Y, Nitta Y, Kanayama N, Miyazaki M . How Well Does Dual-energy CT with Fast Kilovoltage Switching Quantify CT Number and Iodine and Calcium Concentrations?. Acad Radiol. 2017; 25(4):519-528. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.11.002. View

15.

Komiyama R, Ohira S, Kanayama N, Karino T, Washio H, Ueda Y . Volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment planning based on virtual monochromatic images for head and neck cancer: effect of the contrast-enhanced agent on dose distribution. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(11):144-152. PMC: 6839366. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12752. View

16.

Zurl B, Tiefling R, Winkler P, Kindl P, Kapp K . Hounsfield units variations: impact on CT-density based conversion tables and their effects on dose distribution. Strahlenther Onkol. 2013; 190(1):88-93. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-013-0464-5. View

17.

Wohlfahrt P, Mohler C, Richter C, Greilich S . Evaluation of Stopping-Power Prediction by Dual- and Single-Energy Computed Tomography in an Anthropomorphic Ground-Truth Phantom. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 100(1):244-253. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.09.025. View

18.

Ogata T, Ueguchi T, Yagi M, Yamada S, Tanaka C, Ogihara R . Feasibility and accuracy of relative electron density determined by virtual monochromatic CT value subtraction at two different energies using the gemstone spectral imaging. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:83. PMC: 3627631. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-83. View

19.

Kraft J, Lutyj P, Grabenbauer F, Strohle S, Tamihardja J, Razinskas G . Assessment of dual-energy computed tomography derived virtual monoenergetic imaging for target volume delineation of brain metastases. Radiother Oncol. 2023; 187:109840. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109840. View

20.

Patel B, Thomas J, Lockhart M, Berland L, Morgan D . Single-source dual-energy spectral multidetector CT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: optimization of energy level viewing significantly increases lesion contrast. Clin Radiol. 2012; 68(2):148-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.06.108. View