TY - JOUR
T1 - Prototype Ultrahigh-Resolution Computed Tomography for Chest Imaging
T2 - Initial Human Experience
AU - Shanbhag, Sujata M.
AU - Schuzer, John L.
AU - Steveson, Chloe
AU - Rollison, Shirley
AU - Bronson, Kathie C.
AU - Stagliano, Michael S.
AU - Rogalla, Patrik
AU - Blum, Alain
AU - Prokop, Mathias
AU - Chen, Marcus Y.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate a prototype, ultrahigh-resolution computed tomography offering higher reconstruction matrix (1024 _ 1024) and spatial resolution (0.15 mm) for chest imaging.Methods: Higher (1024) matrix reconstruction enabled by ultrahighresolution computed tomography scanner (128-detector rows; detector width, 0.25 mm; spatial resolution, 0.15 mm) was compared with conventional (512) reconstruction with image quality grading on a Likert scale (1, excellent; 5, nondiagnostic) for image noise, artifacts, contrast, small detail, lesion conspicuity, image sharpness, and diagnostic confidence. Image noise and signal-to-noise ratio were quantified.Results: Diagnostic image quality was achieved for all scans on 101 patients. The 1024 reconstruction demonstrated increased image noise (20.2 ± 4.0 vs 17.2 ± 3.8, P < 0.001) and a worse noise rating (1.98 ± 0.63 vs 1.75 ± 0.61, P < 0.001) but performed significantly better than conventional 512 matrix with fewer artifacts (1.37 ± 0.43 vs 1.50 ± 0.48, P < 0.001), better contrast (1.50 ± 0.56 vs 1.62 ± 0.57, P < 0.001), small detail detection (1.06 ± 0.19 vs 2.02 ± 0.22, P < 0.001), lesion conspicuity (1.08 ± 0.23 vs 2.02 ± 0.24, P < 0.001), sharpness (1.09 ± 0.24 vs 2.02 ± 0.28, P < 0.001), and overall diagnostic confidence (1.09 ± 0.25 vs 1.18 ± 0.34, P < 0.001).Conclusions: Ultrahigh-resolution computed tomography enabled a higher reconstruction matrix and improved image quality compared with conventional matrix reconstruction, with a minor increase in noise.
AB - Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate a prototype, ultrahigh-resolution computed tomography offering higher reconstruction matrix (1024 _ 1024) and spatial resolution (0.15 mm) for chest imaging.Methods: Higher (1024) matrix reconstruction enabled by ultrahighresolution computed tomography scanner (128-detector rows; detector width, 0.25 mm; spatial resolution, 0.15 mm) was compared with conventional (512) reconstruction with image quality grading on a Likert scale (1, excellent; 5, nondiagnostic) for image noise, artifacts, contrast, small detail, lesion conspicuity, image sharpness, and diagnostic confidence. Image noise and signal-to-noise ratio were quantified.Results: Diagnostic image quality was achieved for all scans on 101 patients. The 1024 reconstruction demonstrated increased image noise (20.2 ± 4.0 vs 17.2 ± 3.8, P < 0.001) and a worse noise rating (1.98 ± 0.63 vs 1.75 ± 0.61, P < 0.001) but performed significantly better than conventional 512 matrix with fewer artifacts (1.37 ± 0.43 vs 1.50 ± 0.48, P < 0.001), better contrast (1.50 ± 0.56 vs 1.62 ± 0.57, P < 0.001), small detail detection (1.06 ± 0.19 vs 2.02 ± 0.22, P < 0.001), lesion conspicuity (1.08 ± 0.23 vs 2.02 ± 0.24, P < 0.001), sharpness (1.09 ± 0.24 vs 2.02 ± 0.28, P < 0.001), and overall diagnostic confidence (1.09 ± 0.25 vs 1.18 ± 0.34, P < 0.001).Conclusions: Ultrahigh-resolution computed tomography enabled a higher reconstruction matrix and improved image quality compared with conventional matrix reconstruction, with a minor increase in noise.
KW - humans
KW - image quality
KW - tomography
KW - x-ray computed/methods
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85073183228
U2 - 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000917
DO - 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000917
M3 - Article
C2 - 31490890
AN - SCOPUS:85073183228
SN - 0363-8715
VL - 43
SP - 805
EP - 810
JO - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
JF - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
IS - 5
ER -