TY - JOUR
T1 - Ultra-high-resolution computed tomography of the lung
T2 - Image quality of a prototype scanner
AU - Kakinuma, Ryutaro
AU - Moriyama, Noriyuki
AU - Muramatsu, Yukio
AU - Gomi, Shiho
AU - Suzuki, Masahiro
AU - Nagasawa, Hirobumi
AU - Kusumoto, Masahiko
AU - Aso, Tomohiko
AU - Muramatsu, Yoshihisa
AU - Tsuchida, Takaaki
AU - Tsuta, Koji
AU - Maeshima, Akiko Miyagi
AU - Tochigi, Naobumi
AU - Watanabe, Shun Ichi
AU - Sugihara, Naoki
AU - Tsukagoshi, Shinsuke
AU - Saito, Yasuo
AU - Kazama, Masahiro
AU - Ashizawa, Kazuto
AU - Awai, Kazuo
AU - Honda, Osamu
AU - Ishikawa, Hiroyuki
AU - Koizumi, Naoya
AU - Komoto, Daisuke
AU - Moriya, Hiroshi
AU - Oda, Seitaro
AU - Oshiro, Yasuji
AU - Yanagawa, Masahiro
AU - Tomiyama, Noriyuki
AU - Asamura, Hisao
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Kakinuma et al.
PY - 2015/9/9
Y1 - 2015/9/9
N2 - Purpose: The image noise and image quality of a prototype ultra-high-resolution computed tomography (U-HRCT) scanner was evaluated and compared with those of conventional high-resolution CT (C-HRCT) scanners. Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the institutional review board. A U-HRCT scanner prototype with 0.25 mm × 4 rows and operating at 120 mAs was used. The C-HRCT images were obtained using a 0.5 mm × 16 or 0.5 mm × 64 detector-row CT scanner operating at 150 mAs. Images from both scanners were reconstructed at 0.1-mm intervals; the slice thickness was 0.25 mm for the U-HRCT scanner and 0.5 mm for the C-HRCT scanners. For both scanners, the display field of view was 80 mm. The image noise of each scanner was evaluated using a phantom. U-HRCT and C-HRCT images of 53 images selected from 37 lung nodules were then observed and graded using a 5-point score by 10 board-certified thoracic radiologists. The images were presented to the observers randomly and in a blinded manner. Results: The image noise for U-HRCT (100.87 ± 0.51 Hounsfield units [HU]) was greater than that for C-HRCT (40.41 ± 0.52 HU; P <.0001). The image quality of U-HRCT was graded as superior to that of C-HRCT (P <.0001) for all of the following parameters that were examined: margins of subsolid and solid nodules, edges of solid components and pulmonary ves sels in subsolid nodules, air bronchograms, pleural indentations, margins of pulmonary vessels, edges of bronchi, and interlobar fissures. Conclusion: Despite a larger image noise, the prototype U-HRCT scanner had a significantly better image quality than the C-HRCT scanners.
AB - Purpose: The image noise and image quality of a prototype ultra-high-resolution computed tomography (U-HRCT) scanner was evaluated and compared with those of conventional high-resolution CT (C-HRCT) scanners. Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the institutional review board. A U-HRCT scanner prototype with 0.25 mm × 4 rows and operating at 120 mAs was used. The C-HRCT images were obtained using a 0.5 mm × 16 or 0.5 mm × 64 detector-row CT scanner operating at 150 mAs. Images from both scanners were reconstructed at 0.1-mm intervals; the slice thickness was 0.25 mm for the U-HRCT scanner and 0.5 mm for the C-HRCT scanners. For both scanners, the display field of view was 80 mm. The image noise of each scanner was evaluated using a phantom. U-HRCT and C-HRCT images of 53 images selected from 37 lung nodules were then observed and graded using a 5-point score by 10 board-certified thoracic radiologists. The images were presented to the observers randomly and in a blinded manner. Results: The image noise for U-HRCT (100.87 ± 0.51 Hounsfield units [HU]) was greater than that for C-HRCT (40.41 ± 0.52 HU; P <.0001). The image quality of U-HRCT was graded as superior to that of C-HRCT (P <.0001) for all of the following parameters that were examined: margins of subsolid and solid nodules, edges of solid components and pulmonary ves sels in subsolid nodules, air bronchograms, pleural indentations, margins of pulmonary vessels, edges of bronchi, and interlobar fissures. Conclusion: Despite a larger image noise, the prototype U-HRCT scanner had a significantly better image quality than the C-HRCT scanners.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944811042&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944811042&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0137165
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0137165
M3 - Article
C2 - 26352144
AN - SCOPUS:84944811042
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 10
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 9
M1 - e0137165
ER -