4.6 Article

Photon Counting CT Angiography of the Head and Neck: Image Quality Assessment of Polyenergetic and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstructions

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 12, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12061306

Keywords

computed tomography; photon counting detector; CT angiography of the head and neck; virtual monoenergetic reconstructions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the image quality differences between polyenergetic and monoenergetic reconstructions of CT angiographies (CTAs) of the head and neck. The results showed that the photon counting CT (PCCT) method provided excellent image quality, with the PER being the most favorable reconstruction method for diagnostic reporting.
Background: The purpose of the present study was the evaluation of the image quality of polyenergetic and monoenergetic reconstructions (PERs and MERs) of CT angiographies (CTAs) of the head and neck acquired with the novel photon counting CT (PCCT) method in clinical routine. Methods: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. Quantitative image parameters of the extracranial, intracranial and cerebral arteries were evaluated for the PER and MER (40-120 keV). Additionally, two radiologists rated the perceived image quality. Results: The mean CTDIvol used in the PCCT was 8.31 +/- 1.19 mGy. The highest signal within the vessels was detected in the 40 keV MER, whereas the lowest noise was detected in the 115 keV MER. The most favorable contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) were detected in the PER and low keV MER. In the qualitative image analysis, the PER was superior to the MER in all rated criteria. For MER, 60-65 keV was rated as best image quality. Conclusion: Overall, PCCT offers excellent image quality for CTAs of the head and neck. At the current state, the PER of the PCCT seems to be the most favorable reconstruction for diagnostic reporting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available