Low-contrast detectability of photon-counting-detector CT at different scan modes and image types in comparison with energy-integrating-detector CT.

PURPOSE

We aim to compare the low-contrast detectability of a clinical whole-body photon-counting-detector (PCD)-CT at different scan modes and image types with an energy-integrating-detector (EID)-CT.

APPROACH

We used a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) previously optimized for quality control purposes. An American College of Radiology CT accreditation phantom was scanned on both PCD-CT and EID-CT with 10 phantom positionings. For PCD-CT, images were generated using two scan modes, standard resolution (SR) and ultra-high-resolution (UHR); two image types, virtual monochromatic images at 70 keV and low-energy threshold (T3D); both filtered-back-projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) reconstruction methods; and three reconstruction kernels. For each positioning, three repeated scans were acquired for each scan mode, image type, and CTDIvol of 6, 12, and 24 mGy. For EID-CT, images acquired from scans (10 positionings × 3 repeats × 3 doses) were reconstructed using the closest counterpart FBP and IR kernels. CHO was applied to calculate the index of detectability () on both scanners.

RESULTS

With the smooth Br44 kernel, the of UHR was mostly comparable with that of the SR mode (difference: -11.4% to 8.3%, to 0.956), and the T3D images had a higher (difference: 0.7% to 25.6%) than 70 keV images on PCD-CT. Compared with the EID-CT, UHR-T3D of PCD-CT had non-inferior (difference: -2.7% to 12.9%) with IR and non-superior (difference: 0.8% to 11.2%) with FBP using the Br44 kernel. PCD-CT produced higher than EID-CT by 61.8% to 247.1% with the sharper reconstruction kernels.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison between PCD-CT and EID-CT was significantly influenced by the reconstruction method and kernel. With a smooth kernel that is typically used in low-contrast detection tasks, the PCD-CT demonstrated low-contrast detectability that was comparable to EID-CT with IR and showed no superiority when using FBP. With the use of sharper kernels, the PCD-CT significantly outperformed EID-CT in low-contrast detectability.