1. AAPM Task Group Report 299: Quality control in multi‐energy computed tomography.
- Author
-
Layman, Rick R., Leng, Shuai, Boedeker, Kirsten L., Burk, Laurel M., Dang, Hao, Duan, Xinhui, Jacobsen, Megan C., Li, Baojun, Li, Ke, Little, Kevin, Madhav, Priti, Miller, Jessica, Nute, Jessica L., Giraldo, Juan Carlos Ramirez, Ruchala, Kenneth J., Tao, Shengzhen, Varchena, Vladimir, Vedantham, Srinivasan, Zeng, Rongping, and Zhang, Da
- Subjects
IMAGE reconstruction ,RADIATION doses ,QUALITY control ,MANUFACTURING industries ,IODINE - Abstract
Multi‐energy computed tomography (MECT) offers the opportunity for advanced visualization, detection, and quantification of select elements (e.g., iodine) or materials (e.g., fat) beyond the capability of standard single‐energy computed tomography (CT). However, the use of MECT requires careful consideration as substantially different hardware and software approaches have been used by manufacturers, including different sets of user‐selected or hidden parameters that affect the performance and radiation dose of MECT. Another important consideration when designing MECT protocols is appreciation of the specific tasks being performed; for instance, differentiating between two different materials or quantifying a specific element. For a given task, it is imperative to consider both the radiation dose and task‐specific image quality requirements. Development of a quality control (QC) program is essential to ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of these MECT applications. Although standard QC procedures have been well established for conventional single‐energy CT, the substantial differences between single‐energy CT and MECT in terms of system implementations, imaging protocols, and clinical tasks warrant QC tests specific to MECT. This task group was therefore charged with developing a systematic QC program designed to meet the needs of MECT applications. In this report, we review the various MECT approaches that are commercially available, including information about hardware implementation, MECT image types, image reconstruction, and postprocessing techniques that are unique to MECT. We address the requirements for MECT phantoms, review representative commercial MECT phantoms, and offer guidance regarding homemade MECT phantoms. We discuss the development of MECT protocols, which must be designed carefully with proper consideration of MECT technology, imaging task, and radiation dose. We then outline specific recommended QC tests in terms of general image quality, radiation dose, differentiation and quantification tasks, and diagnostic and therapeutic applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF