Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Validation of the use of calibration factors between the iodine concentration and the computed tomography number measured outside the objects for estimation of iodine concentration inside the objects: phantom experiment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Radiation Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to validate the use of a calibration factor measured outside the object for estimating the iodine concentration inside the object to improve the accuracy of the quantitative contrastenhanced computed tomography (CT).

Materials and methods

Several known concentrations (0, 6, 9, and 12 mg I/ml) of iodine contrast material (CM) samples were placed inside and outside cylindrical acrylic phantoms of two sizes and were imaged under various combinations of the tube voltages and currents (kV/mAs–80/200, 100/200, 120/200, 140/200) to obtain K factors. The K factors were compared between the phantoms and among the tube voltages. Each CM concentration was estimated from the CT number using the K factor measured outside the phantom.

Results

The K factors varied between the phantoms or among the tube voltages (P < 0.05). Although there were statistically significant variations in K factors among the different regions in a phantom, the mean variation coefficient was 3%–4%. The mean error of the estimated concentration was −5.5%.

Conclusion

The CM concentration should be accurately estimated at the region within a patient’s body using the K factor measured at the surface of the body regardless of body size and tube voltage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pastorino U, Bellomi M, Landoni C, De Fiori E, Arnaldi P, Picchio M, et al. Early lung-cancer detection with spiral CT and positron emission tomography in heavy smokers: 2-year results. Lancet 2003;362:593–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Szolar DH, Kammerhuber F. Quantitative CT evaluation of adrenal gland masses: a step forward in the differentiation between adenomas and nonadenomas? Radiology 1997;202:517–521.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Boland GW, Hahn PF, Pena C, Mueller PR. Adrenal masses: characterization with delayed contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 1997;202:693–696.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Swensen SJ, Brown LR, Colby TV, Weaver AL, Midthun DE. Lung nodule enhancement at CT: prospective findings. Radiology 1996;201:447–455.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tateishi U, Nishihara H, Watanabe S, Morikawa T, Abe K, Miyasaka K. Tumor angiogenesis and dynamic CT in lung adenocarcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:23–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Miles KA. Measurement of tissue perfusion by dynamic computed tomography. Br J Radiol 1991;64:409–412.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Miles KA, Griffiths MR. Perfusion CT: a worthwhile enhancement? Br J Radiol 2003;76:220–231.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, Hatemura M, Imuta M, Nakaura T, et al. Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 2005;237:945–951.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miles KA, Young H, Chica SL, Esser PD. Quantitative contrast-enhanced computed tomography: is there a need for system calibration? Eur Radiol 2007;17:919–926.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 2004;233:515–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Garrett JS, Lanzer P, Jaschke W. Measurement of cardiac output by cine computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 1985;10:657–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ludman PF, Darby M, Tomlinson N, Poole-Wilson PA, Rees S. Cardiac flow measurement by ultrafast CT: validation of continuous and pulsatile flow. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992;16:795–803.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Welch BL. The generalization of “Student’s” problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 1947;34:28–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Neuhäuser M. Two-sample tests when variances are unequal. Anim Behav 2002;63:823–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zerhouni EA, Spivey JF, Morgan RH, Leo FP, Stitik FP, Siegelman SS. Factors influencing quantitative CT measurements of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1982;6:1075–1087.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Birnbaum BA, Hindman N, Lee J, Babb JS. Multi-detector row CT attenuation measurements: assessment of intra-and interscanner variability with an anthropomorphic body CT phantom. Radiology 2007;242:109–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kentaro Takanami.

About this article

Cite this article

Takanami, K., Higano, S., Takase, K. et al. Validation of the use of calibration factors between the iodine concentration and the computed tomography number measured outside the objects for estimation of iodine concentration inside the objects: phantom experiment. Radiat Med 26, 237–243 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-007-0220-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-007-0220-9

Key words

Navigation