4.6 Article

Coronary Calcium Scoring with First Generation Dual-Source Photon-Counting CT-First Evidence from Phantom and In-Vivo Scans

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11091708

关键词

agatston score; computed tomography; coronary CT angiography; coronary calcium scoring; photon counting computed tomography; virtual monoenergetic imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the accuracy of coronary artery calcium scoring on a dual-source photon-counting detector CT. Results showed that VMI reconstructions provided accurate CAC scoring at different radiation dose levels.
We evaluated the accuracy of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring on a dual-source photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT). An anthropomorphic chest phantom underwent ECG-gated sequential scanning on a PCD-CT at 120 kV with four radiation dose levels (CTDIvol, 2.0-8.6 mGy). Polychromatic images at 120 kV (T3D) and virtual monoenergetic images (VMI), from 60 to 75 keV without quantum iterative reconstruction (no QIR) and QIR strength levels 1-4, were reconstructed. For reference, the same phantom was scanned on a conventional energy-integrating detector CT (120 kV; filtered back projection) at identical radiation doses. CAC scoring in 20 patients with PCD-CT (120 kV; no QIR and QIR 1-4) were included. In the phantom, there were no differences between CAC scores of different radiation doses (all, p > 0.05). Images with 70 keV, no QIR (CAC score, 649); 65 keV, QIR 3 (656); 65 keV; QIR4 (648) and T3D, QIR4 (656) showed a <1% deviation to the reference (653). CAC scores significantly decreased at increasing QIR levels (all, p < 0.001) and for each 5 keV-increase (all, p < 0.001). Patient data (median CAC score: 86 [inter-quartile range: 38-978] at 70 keV) confirmed relationships and differences between reconstructions from the phantom. First phantom and in-vivo experience with a clinical dual-source PCD-CT system shows accurate CAC scoring with VMI reconstructions at different radiation dose levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据