CT Number Accuracy and Association With Object Size: A Phantom Study Comparing Energy-Integrating Detector CT and Deep Silicon Photon-Counting Detector CT.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND. Variable beam hardening based on patient size causes variation in CT numbers for energy-integrating detector (EID) CT. Photon-counting detector (PCD) CT more accurately determines effective beam energy, potentially improving CT number reliability. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of the present study was to compare EID CT and deep silicon PCD CT in terms of both the effect of changes in object size on CT number and the overall accuracy of CT numbers. METHODS. A phantom with polyethylene rings of varying sizes (mimicking patient sizes) as well as inserts of different materials was scanned on an EID CT scanner in single-energy (SE) mode (120-kV images) and in rapid-kilovoltage-switching dual-energy (DE) mode (70-keV images) and on a prototype deep silicon PCD CT scanner (70-keV images). ROIs were placed to measure the CT numbers of the materials. Slopes of CT number as a function of object size were computed. Materials' ideal CT number at 70 keV was computed using the National Institute of Standards and Technology XCOM Photon Cross Sections Database. The root mean square error (RMSE) between measured and ideal numbers was calculated across object sizes. RESULTS. Slope (expressed as Hounsfield units per centimeter) was significantly closer to zero (i.e., less variation in CT number as a function of size) for PCD CT than for SE EID CT for air (1.2 vs 2.4 HU/cm), water (-0.3 vs -1.0 HU/cm), iodine (-1.1 vs -4.5 HU/cm), and bone (-2.5 vs -10.1 HU/cm) and for PCD CT than for DE EID CT for air (1.2 vs 2.8 HU/cm), water (-0.3 vs -1.0 HU/cm), polystyrene (-0.2 vs -0.9 HU/cm), iodine (-1.1 vs -1.9 HU/cm), and bone (-2.5 vs -6.2 HU/cm) (p < .05). For all tested materials, PCD CT had the smallest RMSE, indicating CT numbers closest to ideal numbers; specifically, RMSE (expressed as Hounsfield units) for SE EID CT, DE EID CT, and PCD CT was 32, 44, and 17 HU for air; 7, 8, and 3 HU for water; 9, 10, and 4 HU for polystyrene; 31, 37, and 13 HU for iodine; and 69, 81, and 20 HU for bone, respectively. CONCLUSION. For numerous materials, deep silicon PCD CT, in comparison with SE EID CT and DE EID CT, showed lower CT number variability as a function of size and CT numbers closer to ideal numbers. CLINICAL IMPACT. Greater reliability of CT numbers for PCD CT is important given the dependence of diagnostic pathways on CT numbers.