Comparative Study of Image Quality in Time-Correlated Single-Photon Counting Computed Tomography

Computed tomography (CT) is widely used in medical imaging to reconstruct a 3-D image of a patient. To limit the radiation dose applied to patients, researches focus on reducing the statistical noise or increasing the contrast in the image. Recently, time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) CT—also known as time-of-flight (TOF) CT—has been proposed to reduce scatter contribution to images and its negative effects on image quality. This technique uses the TOF information of X-ray photons to sort out scattered and ballistic photons without energy measurement. This article compares simulated images quality obtained from different CT scanner implementations (fan-beam, cone-beam with and without anti-scatter grids, and TCSPC). The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the scattered-to-primary ratio (SPR), the inaccuracy of the computed attenuation value, and the cup artifact magnitude are used as comparison metrics to study the overall sensitivity of the different scanner implementations to scatter contribution. Using timing jitters of 200, 100, and 50 ps, the simulations demonstrate that the TCSPC implementation improves the CNR, accuracy, and cup artifact levels of the reconstructed images, when compared to a cone-beam CT, by reducing its scatter contribution. A 10-ps timing jitter on the measured time of flight leads to an image quality similar to fan-beam CT.

[1]  R. Fontaine,et al.  Time-of-flight computed tomography - proof of principle , 2020, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Changhwan Kim,et al.  A weighted rebinned backprojection‐filtration algorithm from partially beam‐blocked data for a single‐scan cone‐beam CT with hybrid type scatter correction , 2019, Medical physics.

[3]  Xi Chen,et al.  Robust moving-blocker scatter correction for cone-beam computed tomography using multiple-view information , 2017, PloS one.

[4]  Réjean Fontaine,et al.  Low Power and Small Area, 6.9 ps RMS Time-to-Digital Converter for 3-D Digital SiPM , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences.

[5]  Lawrence M Lechuga,et al.  Cone Beam CT vs. Fan Beam CT: A Comparison of Image Quality and Dose Delivered Between Two Differing CT Imaging Modalities , 2016, Cureus.

[6]  Simon Rit,et al.  The Reconstruction Toolkit (RTK), an open-source cone-beam CT reconstruction toolkit based on the Insight Toolkit (ITK) , 2014 .

[7]  L. Goldman,et al.  Principles of CT: Multislice CT* , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[8]  D. Brenner,et al.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  W. Kalender,et al.  Efficiency of antiscatter grids for flat-detector CT , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  D. Visvikis,et al.  GATE: a simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  H. Aichinger,et al.  Radiation Exposure and Image Quality in X-Ray Diagnostic Radiology: Physical Principles and Clinical Applications , 2003 .

[12]  D. Jaffray,et al.  Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter. , 2001, Medical physics.

[13]  C A Kelsey,et al.  CT scanning: patterns of use and dose , 2000, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[14]  Horst Aichinger,et al.  Radiation Exposure and Image Quality in X-Ray Diagnostic Radiology , 2004, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[15]  K D Hopper,et al.  Reconstructed helical CT scans: improvement in z-axis resolution compared with overlapped and nonoverlapped conventional CT scans. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.