Performance of calcium quantifications on low-dose photon-counting detector CT with high-pitch: A phantom study

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the performance of calcium quantification on photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) with high-pitch at low radiation doses compared to third-generation dual-source energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT). Materials and methodsThe phantom with three calcium inserts (50, 100, and 300 mg of calcium per milliliter), with and without the elliptical outer layer, was evaluated using high-pitch (3.2) and standard pitch (0.8) on PCD-CT, and standard pitch on EID-CT. Scans were performed with different tube voltages (PCD-CT: 120 and 140 kilo-voltage peak [kVp]; EID-CT: 70/Sn150 and 100/Sn150 kVp) and four radiation doses (1, 3, 5, and, 10 milli-Gray [mGy]). Utilizing the true calcium concentrations (CCtrue) of the phantom as the gold standard references, regression equations for each kVp setting were formulated to convert CT attenuations (CaCT) into measured calcium concentrations (CCm). The correlation analysis between CaCT and CCtrue was performed. The percentage absolute bias (PAB) was calculated from the differences between CCm and CCtrue and used to analyze the effects of scanning parameters on calcium quantification accuracy. ResultsA strong correlation was found between CaCT and CCtrue on PCD-CT (r > 0.99) and EID-CT (r > 0.98). For high- and standard-pitch scans on PCD-CT, the accuracy of calcium quantification is comparable (p = 0.615): the median (interquartile range [IQR]) of PAB was 5.59% (2.79%–8.31%) and 4.87 % (2.62%–8.01%), respectively. The PAB median (IQR) was 7.43% (3.77%–11.75%) for EID-CT. The calcium quantification accuracy of PCD-CT is superior to EID-CT at the large phantom (5.46% [2.68%–9.55%] versus 9.01% [6.22%–12.74%]), and at the radiation dose of 1 mGy (4.43% [2.08%–8.59%] versus 13.89% [8.93%–23.09%]) and 3 mGy (4.61% [2.75%–6.51%] versus 9.97% [5.17%–14.41%]), all p < 0.001. ConclusionsCalcium quantification using low-dose PCD-CT with high-pitch scanning is feasible and accurate, and superior to EID-CT.