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.