Analysis of CT Number Value According To Tube Voltage by CT Equipment Manufacturer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/5dhe8q35Keywords:
Tube Voltage, CT number, HU, Phantom, Computed TomographyAbstract
Background/Objectives: The purpose of this study is to provide the basic data for imaging by analyzing the difference of a CT number according to the set energy of each CT equipment manufacturer.
Methods/Statistical analysis: In this study, the CT equipment analysis is targeted at the equipment manufactured by Siemens, GE, Canon, and Philips. In this reference, the phantom used by the Nuclear Associates 76-410 CT phantom and its own phantom. Here, the tube exposure was fixed at 250mAs, while the exposure conditions were changed to 140Kv, 120Kv, 100Kv and 80Kv. In this case, the experiment was repeated twice, and the CT number of the material was measured and analyzed with the same size regions of interest (ROI) in each phantom image.
Findings: The results showed that the CT number of the material was found to decrease, as the tube voltage decreased in all five materials of AAPM. Additionally, when the same tube voltage was set, the GE equipment showed the lowest CT number values for all five AAPM materials. It is noted that in the self-made 6% contrast agent phantom, the CT number increased gradually as the tube voltage decreased. Finally, when the same tube voltage was set, the Siemens equipment showed the lowest CT number in this case.
Improvements/Applications: The prevailing discipline in this study noted that when medical institutions use CT numbers to read or measure images, it is necessary to identify and utilize the range of variation in the CT number of the material, and calculate that number according to the tube voltage of the equipment being used. In particular, it is considered that these results are significant, and the calibrations noted should be used for the determination of patient diagnosis with a different range of criteria for each manufacturer, whereby the active CT number correction is also necessary to be performed in each case with the different equipment being utilized for CT evaluation for patient health outcomes.
Downloads
References
[1] M.Prokop. Principles of CT, spiral CT, and multislice CT. spiral and multislice computed tomography of the body. New York, Thieme 2004.p.1-37.
[2] Sang Gyu Lee. Current status and policy options for high-tech medical devices in Korea: vertical and horizontal synchronization of health policy. J Korean Med Assoc 2012 October; 55(10): 950-8.
DOI:10.5124/jkma.2012.55.10.950
[3] Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M Jr., Detrano R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15(4):827–32.
DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(90)90282-t
[4] Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging, 3rd ed. 2013;40(7). DOI: 10.1118/1.4811156.
[5] Levi C, Gray JE, McCullough EX, Hattery RR. The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values. Am J Roentgenol. 1982; 139(3):443–7. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.139.3.443
[6] Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986; 158(1):1–10. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.158.1.3510019
[7] Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 2008; 249(1):16–31. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2491070783.
[8] Korobkin M, Brodeur FJ, Yutzy GG, et al. Differentiation of adrenal adenomas from nonadenomas using CT attenuation values. Am J Roentgenol.1996;166(3):531–6. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.166.3.8623622
[9] Caoili EM, Korobkin M, Francis IR, et al. Adrenal masses: characterization with combined unenhanced and delayed enhanced CT. Radiology. 2002;222(3):629–33. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2223010766
[10] Hartman DS, Choyke PL, Hartman MS. From the RSNA refresher courses: a practical approach to the cystic renal mass. Radiographics. 2004;24(Suppl 1):S101–S115. DOI: 10.1148/rg.24si045515
[11] Hounsfield GN. Nobel Award address. Computed medical imaging. Med Phys. 1980 Jul-Aug;7(4):283-
90. DOI:10.1118/1.594709
[12] Robert J. Cropp, Petar Seslija, David Tso et al. Scanner and kVp dependence of measured CT numbers in the ACR CT phantom. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2013.14(6);338-349. DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4417
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
