Photon-counting detector CT of the brain reduces variability of Hounsfield units and has a mean offset compared with energy-integrating detector CT.

Thomas Stein, Friederike Lang, Stephan Rau, Marco Reisert, Maximilian F Russe, Till Schürmann, Anna Fink, Elias Kellner, Jakob Weiss, Fabian Bamberg, Horst Urbach, Alexander Rau
{"title":"Photon-counting detector CT of the brain reduces variability of Hounsfield units and has a mean offset compared with energy-integrating detector CT.","authors":"Thomas Stein, Friederike Lang, Stephan Rau, Marco Reisert, Maximilian F Russe, Till Schürmann, Anna Fink, Elias Kellner, Jakob Weiss, Fabian Bamberg, Horst Urbach, Alexander Rau","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Distinguishing gray matter (GM) from white matter (WM) is essential for CT of the brain. The recently established photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) technology employs a novel detection technique that might allow more precise measurement of tissue attenuation for an improved delineation of attenuation values (Hounsfield units - HU) and improved image quality in comparison with energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT). To investigate this, we compared HU, GM vs. WM contrast, and image noise using automated deep learning-based brain segmentations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We retrospectively included patients who received either PCD-CT or EID-CT and did not display a cerebral pathology. A deep learning-based segmentation of the GM and WM was used to extract HU. From this, the gray-to-white ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 329 patients with EID-CT (mean age 59.8 ± 20.2 years) and 180 with PCD-CT (mean age 64.7 ± 16.5 years). GM and WM showed significantly lower HU in PCD-CT (GM: 40.4 ± 2.2 HU; WM: 33.4 ± 1.5 HU) compared to EID-CT (GM: 45.1 ± 1.6 HU; WM: 37.4 ± 1.6 HU, p < .001). Standard deviations of HU were also lower in PCD-CT (GM and WM both p < .001) and contrast-tonoise ratio was significantly higher in PCD-CT compared to EID-CT (p < .001). Gray-to-white matter ratios were not significantly different across both modalities (p > .99). In an age-matched subset (n = 157 patients from both cohorts), all findings were replicated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This comprehensive comparison of HU in cerebral gray and white matter revealed substantially reduced image noise and an average offset with lower HU in PCD-CT while the ratio between GM and WM remained constant. The potential need to adapt windowing presets based on this finding should be investigated in future studies.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>CNR = Contrast-to-Noise Ratio; CTDIvol = Volume Computed Tomography Dose Index; EID = Energy-Integrating Detector; GWR = Gray-to-White Matter Ratio; HU = Hounsfield Units; PCD = Photon-Counting Detector; ROI = Region of Interest; VMI = Virtual Monoenergetic Images.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8910","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: Distinguishing gray matter (GM) from white matter (WM) is essential for CT of the brain. The recently established photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) technology employs a novel detection technique that might allow more precise measurement of tissue attenuation for an improved delineation of attenuation values (Hounsfield units - HU) and improved image quality in comparison with energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT). To investigate this, we compared HU, GM vs. WM contrast, and image noise using automated deep learning-based brain segmentations.

Materials and methods: We retrospectively included patients who received either PCD-CT or EID-CT and did not display a cerebral pathology. A deep learning-based segmentation of the GM and WM was used to extract HU. From this, the gray-to-white ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated.

Results: We included 329 patients with EID-CT (mean age 59.8 ± 20.2 years) and 180 with PCD-CT (mean age 64.7 ± 16.5 years). GM and WM showed significantly lower HU in PCD-CT (GM: 40.4 ± 2.2 HU; WM: 33.4 ± 1.5 HU) compared to EID-CT (GM: 45.1 ± 1.6 HU; WM: 37.4 ± 1.6 HU, p < .001). Standard deviations of HU were also lower in PCD-CT (GM and WM both p < .001) and contrast-tonoise ratio was significantly higher in PCD-CT compared to EID-CT (p < .001). Gray-to-white matter ratios were not significantly different across both modalities (p > .99). In an age-matched subset (n = 157 patients from both cohorts), all findings were replicated.

Conclusions: This comprehensive comparison of HU in cerebral gray and white matter revealed substantially reduced image noise and an average offset with lower HU in PCD-CT while the ratio between GM and WM remained constant. The potential need to adapt windowing presets based on this finding should be investigated in future studies.

Abbreviations: CNR = Contrast-to-Noise Ratio; CTDIvol = Volume Computed Tomography Dose Index; EID = Energy-Integrating Detector; GWR = Gray-to-White Matter Ratio; HU = Hounsfield Units; PCD = Photon-Counting Detector; ROI = Region of Interest; VMI = Virtual Monoenergetic Images.

脑光子计数检测器CT减少了霍斯菲尔德单位的可变性,与能量积分检测器CT相比具有平均偏移。
背景与目的:区分脑灰质(GM)与白质(WM)在CT检查中是非常重要的。最近建立的光子计数检测器CT (PCD-CT)技术采用了一种新的检测技术,可以更精确地测量组织衰减,从而改善衰减值(Hounsfield单位- HU)的描述,并且与能量积分检测器CT (id -CT)相比,可以提高图像质量。为了研究这一点,我们比较了HU、GM和WM对比度,以及使用基于自动深度学习的大脑分割的图像噪声。材料和方法:我们回顾性地纳入了接受PCD-CT或EID-CT且未显示大脑病理的患者。采用基于深度学习的GM和WM分割方法提取HU。在此基础上,计算出图像的灰度比和噪比。结果:我们纳入了329例EID-CT(平均年龄59.8±20.2岁)和180例PCD-CT(平均年龄64.7±16.5岁)。GM和WM在PCD-CT上显示较低的HU (GM: 40.4±2.2 HU;WM: 33.4±1.5 HU)与EID-CT (GM: 45.1±1.6 HU;WM: 37.4±1.6 HU, p < 0.001)。与EID-CT相比,PCD-CT的HU标准差也较低(GM和WM均p < 0.001),比噪比显著高于PCD-CT (p < 0.001)。两种方式的灰质与白质比率无显著差异(p < 0.05)。在年龄匹配的亚组中(来自两个队列的157例患者),所有的发现都是重复的。结论:对脑灰质和白质HU的综合比较显示,在GM和WM的比值保持不变的情况下,PCD-CT图像噪声和平均偏移量明显降低。基于这一发现调整窗口预设的潜在需求应该在未来的研究中进行调查。缩写:CNR =对比噪声比;CTDIvol =体积计算机断层扫描剂量指数;能量积分检测器;脑灰质与白质比;Hounsfield单位;光子计数检测器;ROI =兴趣区域;VMI =虚拟单能量图像。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信