Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-08-24
Evaluating image quality and optimal parameters for non-linear blending dual-energy computed tomography images of hepatic portal veins by blending-property-map
Blending technology is usually used to improve quality of dual-energy computed (DECT) images.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the blended DECT image qualities by employing the Blending-Property-Map (BP-Map) and elucidating the optimal parameters with the highest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).
METHODS:
Sixty pairs of 80 kV and 140 kV CT images are blended non-linearly by four methods. Protocol A uses the fixed values of blending width (BW) and blending center (BC); Protocol B uses the values of BW = (CThepatic portal vein – CThepatic parenchymal) / 2 and BC = (CThepatic portal vein + CThepatic parenchymal) / 2; Protocol C uses a BW ranging from 10 to 100 HU at an interval of 10 HU and BC = (CThepatic portal vein + CThepatic parenchymal) / 2; Protocol D uses the BP-Map that covers all possible values of BW and BC.
RESULTS:
When using CT value of adipose tissue as noise, the calculated SNR and CNR of optimal blending width and blending center were 123.22±41.73 and 9.00±3.52, respectively, by the BP-Map in the protocol D. By employing the CT value of back muscle as noise, the SNR and CNR of the best-blended images were 75.90±14.52 and 6.39±2.37, respectively. The subjective score of protocol D was 4.88±0.12.
CONCLUSIONS:
Compared to traditional blending methods, the BP-Map technique can determine the optimal blending parameter and provide the best-blended images with the highest SNR and CNR.
HounsfieldG.N., Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part 1. Description of system, Br J Radiol46(552) (1973), 1016–1022.
2.
HolmesD.R., FletcherJ.G., ApelA., et al., Evaluation of non-linear blending in dual-energy computed tomography, Eur J Radiol68(3) (2008), 409–413.
3.
HidasG., EliahouR., DuvdevaniM., et al., Determination of renal stone composition with dual-energy CT: In vivo analysis and comparison with X-ray diffraction, Radiology257(2) (2010), 394–401.
XueY., RuanR.S., HuX.H., et al., Statistical image-domain multimaterial decomposition for dual-energy CT, Med Phys44(3) (2017), 886–901.
6.
GuptaR.T., HoL.M., MarinD., et al., Dual-energy CT for characterization of adrenal nodules: Initial experience, AJR Am J Roentgenol194(6) (2010), 1479–1483.
7.
RutherfordR.A., PullanB.R. and IsherwoodI., Measurement of effective atomic number and electron-density using an Emi scanner, Neuroradiology11(1) (1976), 15–21.
8.
HuC., ZhangY., XiongX., et al., Quantitative evaluation of bone marrow infiltration using dual-energy spectral computed tomography in patients with multiple myeloma, J Xray Sci Technol29(3) (2021), 463–475.
9.
HanS.C., ChungY.E., LeeY.H., et al., Metal artifact reduction software used with abdominopelvic dual-energy CT of patients with metal hip prostheses: Assessment of image quality and clinical feasibility, AJR Am J Roentgenol203(4) (2014), 788–795.
10.
LewisM., ReidK. and TomsA.P., Reducing the effects of metal artefact using high keV monoenergetic reconstruction of dual energy CT (DECT) in hip replacements, Skeletal Radiol42(2) (2013), 275–282.
11.
WangQ., GaofengS., XueliF., et al., Comparative study of hepatic venography using non-linear-blending images, monochromatic images and low-voltage images of dual-energy CT, Br J Radiol87(1042) (2014), 9.
12.
ChenB., ZhangZ., XiaD., et al., Dual-energy CT imaging over non-overlapping, orthogonal arcs of limited-angular ranges, J Xray Sci Technol29(6) (2021), 975–985.
13.
AscentiG., KraussB., MazziottiS., et al., Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in renal masses: Nonlinear versus linear blending, Acad Radiol19(10) (2012), 1186–1193.
14.
MarinD., NelsonR.C., BarnhartH., et al., Detection of pancreatic tumors, image quality, and radiation dose during the pancreatic parenchymal phase: Effect of a low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current CT technique - preliminary results, Radiology256(2) (2010), 450–459.
15.
PotretzkeT.A., BraceC.L., LubnerM.G., et al., Early small-bowel ischemia: Dual-energy CT improves conspicuity compared with conventional CT in a Swine model, Radiology275(1) (2015), 119–126.
16.
QuineyB., HarrisA., McLaughlinP. and NicolaouS., Dual-energy CT increases reader confidence in the detection and diagnosis of hypoattenuating pancreatic lesions, Abdom Imaging40(4) (2015), 859–864.
17.
TakahashiN., VrtiskaT.J., KawashimaA., et al., Detectability of urinary stones on virtual nonenhanced images generated at pyelographic-phase dual-energy CT, Radiology256(1) (2010), 184–190.
18.
LambP., SahaniD.V., Fuentes-OrregoJ.M., et al., Stratification of patients with liver fibrosis using dual-energy CT, IEEE Trans Med Imaging34(3) (2015), 807–815.
19.
StillerW., SchwarzwaelderC.B., SommerC.M., et al., Dual-energy, standard and low-kVp contrast-enhanced CT-cholangiography: A comparative analysis of image quality and radiation exposure, Eur J Radiol81(7) (2012), 1405–1412.
20.
WangQ., ShiG.F., QiX.H., et al., Quantitative analysis of the dual-energy CT virtual spectral curve for focal liver lesions characterization, Eur J Radiol83(10) (2014), 1759–1764.
21.
YamadaY., JinzakiM., TanamiY., et al., Virtual monochromatic spectral imaging for the evaluation of hypovascular hepatic metastases the optimal monochromatic level with fast kilovoltage switching dual-energy computed tomography, Invest Radiol47(5) (2012), 292–298.
22.
De CeccoC.N., MuscogiuriG., SchoepfU.J., et al., Virtual unenhanced imaging of the liver with third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT and advanced modeled iterative reconstruction, Eur J Radiol85(7) (2016), 1257–1264.
23.
LiS.L., WangC.Q., JiangX.C. and XuG., Effects of dual-energy CT with non-linear blending on abdominal CT angiography, Korean J Radiol15(4) (2014), 430–438.
24.
LvP., LiuJ., WuR., et al., Use of non-linear image blending with dual-energy CT improves vascular visualization in abdominal angiography, Clin Radiol69(2) (2014), E93–E9.
25.
ShinS.S., KangH.K., KimH.W., et al., Dual energy computed tomography to evaluateh hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transcatheter arterial chemo-embolization: Comparison between the linear blending and nonlinear moidal blending methods, Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology67(5) (2012), 371–380.
26.
EusemannC., HolmesD.R.III, SchmidtB., et al., editors. Dual energy CT: How to best blend both energies in one fused image? Medical Imaging 2008: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Modeling; 2008: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
27.
WangQ., ShiG.F., LiuX., et al., Optimal contrast of computed tomography portal venography using dual-energy computed tomography, J Comput Assist Tomogr37(2) (2013), 142–148.
28.
RobinsonE., BabbJ., ChandaranaH. and MacariM., Dual source dual energy MDCT: comparison of 80kVp and weighted average 120kVp data for conspicuity of hypo-vascular liver metastases, Invest Radiol45(7) (2010), 413–418.
