Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative imaging techniques, such as virtual monochromatic imaging (VMI) and iodine quantification (IQ), have proven valuable diagnostic methods in several specific clinical tasks such as tumor and tissue differentiation. Recently, a new generation of computed tomography (CT) scanners equipped with photon-counting detectors (PCD) has reached clinical status. PURPOSE: This work aimed to investigate the performance of a new photon-counting CT (PC-CT) in low-dose quantitative imaging tasks, comparing it to an earlier generation CT scanner with an energy-integrating detector dual-energy CT (DE-CT). The accuracy and precision of the quantification across size, dose, material types (including low and high iodine concentrations), displacement from iso-center, and solvent (tissue background) composition were explored. METHODS: Quantitative analysis was performed on two clinical scanners, Siemens SOMATOM Force and NAEOTOM Alpha using a multi-energy phantom with plastic inserts mimicking different iodine concentrations and tissue types. The tube configurations in the dual-energy scanner were 80/150Sn kVp and 100/150Sn kVp, while for PC-CT both tube voltages were set to either 120 or 140 kVp with photon-counting energy thresholds set at 20/65 or 20/70 keV. The statistical significance of patient-related parameters in quantitative measurements was examined using ANOVA and pairwise comparison with the posthoc Tukey honest significance test. Scanner bias was assessed in both quantitative tasks for relevant patient-specific parameters. RESULTS: The accuracy of IQ and VMI in the PC-CT was comparable between standard and low radiation doses (p < 0.01). The patient size and tissue type significantly affect the accuracy of both quantitative imaging tasks in both scanners. The PC-CT scanner outperforms the DE-CT scanner in the IQ task in all cases. Iodine quantification bias in the PC-CT (-0.9 ± 0.15 mg/mL) at low doses in our study was comparable to that of DE-CT (range -2.6 to 1.5 mg/mL, published elsewhere) at a 1.7× higher dose, but the dose reduction severely biased DE-CT (4.72 ± 0.22 mg/mL). The accuracy in Hounsfield units (HU) estimation was comparable for 70 and 100 keV virtual imaging between scanners, but PC-CT was significantly underestimating virtual 40 keV HU values of dense materials in the phantom representing the extremely obese population. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical analysis of our measurements reveals better IQ at lower radiation doses using new PC-CT. Although VMI performance was mostly comparable between the scanners, the DE-CT scanner quantitatively outperformed PC-CT when estimating HU values in the specific case of very large phantoms and dense materials, benefiting from increased X-ray tube potentials.