Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Different methods can be used to condition imaging systems for clinical use. The purpose of this study was to assess how these methods complement one another in evaluating a system for clinical integration of an emerging technology, photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT), for thoracic imaging. METHODS: Four methods were used to assess a clinical PCCT system (NAEOTOM Alpha; Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) across 3 reconstruction kernels (Br40f, Br48f, and Br56f). First, a phantom evaluation was performed using a computed tomography quality control phantom to characterize noise magnitude, spatial resolution, and detectability. Second, clinical images acquired using conventional and PCCT systems were used for a multi-institutional reader study where readers from 2 institutions were asked to rank their preference of images. Third, the clinical images were assessed in terms of in vivo image quality characterization of global noise index and detectability. Fourth, a virtual imaging trial was conducted using a validated simulation platform (DukeSim) that models PCCT and a virtual patient model (XCAT) with embedded lung lesions imaged under differing conditions of respiratory phase and positional displacement. Using known ground truth of the patient model, images were evaluated for quantitative biomarkers of lung intensity histograms and lesion morphology metrics. RESULTS: For the physical phantom study, the Br56f kernel was shown to have the highest resolution despite having the highest noise and lowest detectability. Readers across both institutions preferred the Br56f kernel (71% first rank) with a high interclass correlation (0.990). In vivo assessments found superior detectability for PCCT compared with conventional computed tomography but higher noise and reduced detectability with increased kernel sharpness. For the virtual imaging trial, Br40f was shown to have the best performance for histogram measures, whereas Br56f was shown to have the most precise and accurate morphology metrics. CONCLUSION: The 4 evaluation methods each have their strengths and limitations and bring complementary insight to the evaluation of PCCT. Although no method offers a complete answer, concordant findings between methods offer affirmatory confidence in a decision, whereas discordant ones offer insight for added perspective. Aggregating our findings, we concluded the Br56f kernel best for high-resolution tasks and Br40f for contrast-dependent tasks.