Authors : Regita Kharisma; Choirul Anam; Heri Sutanto; Dito Adi Rukmana

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 5 - May

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/bdzafn4k

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yc25xks6

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2383

Abstract : To investigate the effects of tube voltage and phantom diameter on noise inhomogeneity of computed tomography (CT) image. This study used a step-wedge water cylindrical phantom with four diameters (i.e., 8, 16, 24, and 32 cm). The phantom was scanned with GE 128- Slice CT scanner with tube voltage variation of 80, 100, 120, and 140 kV. Noise inhomogeneity was measured using IndoQCT software. The noise inhomogeneity measurement was started with creating noise maps on the image with kernel size of 11 pixels. After that, multiple region of interests (ROIs) with size of 15 pixels were placed at 85% of image area. The noise inhomogeneity was determined as difference between the highest and the lowest noises from each ROI. : It was found that the highest noise inhomogeneity is at phantom diameter of 32 cm and tube voltage of 80 kV (14.00 ± 0.93 HU), and the lowest noise inhomogeneity is at phantom diameter of 8 cm and tube voltage of 140 kV (0.40 ± 0.02 HU). The trends of the tube voltage and phantom diameter on noise inhomogeneity were similar to the trends of the noise level, i.e., noise inhomogeneity increases with increasing phantom diameter and with decreasing tube voltage. Effects of variations of tube voltage and phantom diameter on the noise inhomogeneity has been investigated. Trends of the noise inhomogeneity due to tube voltage and phantom diameter are the same as trends of the noise level.

Keywords : Inhomogeneity Noise, Step Wedge Water Cylindrical Phantom, CT-Scan.

References :

1. Seeram R. Computed tomography: Physical principles and recent technical advance. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2010;41:87-109
2. Sookpeng S, Martin CJ, Butdee C. The investigation of dose and image quality of chest computed tomography using different combinations of noise index and adaptive statistic iterative reconstruction level. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2019;29(1):53-60.
3. Setiawati E, Anam C, Widyasari W, Dougherty G. The quantitative effect of noise and object diameter on low-contrast detectability of AAPM CT performance phantom images. Atom Indonesia. 2023;49(1):61-66.
4. Fujii K, Nomura K, Imai K, Muramatsu Y, Tsushima S, Ota H. Evaluation of Apparent Noise on CT Images Using Moving Average Filters. J Digit Imaging. 2022;35(1):77-85.
5. C A, K A, H S, et al. Noise Reduction in CT Images Using a Selective Mean Filter. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2020;10(5):623-634.
6. Mohammadinejad P, Mileto A, Yu L, et al. CT Noise-Reduction Methods for Lower-Dose Scanning: Strengths and Weaknesses of Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms and New Techniques. Radiographics. 2021;41(5):1493-1508.
7. Anam C, Triadyaksa P, Naufal A, et al. Impact of ROI Size on the Accuracy of Noise Measurement in CT on Computational and ACR Phantoms. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2022;12(4):359-368.
8. Anam C, Naufal A, Matsubara K, Fujibuchi T, Dougherty G. A method for quantification of noise non-uniformity in computed tomography images: A computational study. J Phys Its Appl. 2023.
9. Inkinen SI, Mäkelä T, Kaasalainen T, Peltonen J, Kangasniemi M, Kortesniemi M. Automatic head computed tomography image noise quantification with deep learning. Phys Med. 2022;99:102-112.
10. Solomon J, Wilson J, Samei E. Characteristic image quality of a third generation dual-source MDCT scanner: Noise, resolution, and detectability. Med Phys. 2015;42(8):4941-4953.
11. Karmazyn B, Liang Y, Klahr P, Jennings SG. Effect of tube voltage on CT noise levels in different phantom sizes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(5):1001-1005.
12. Samei E, Bakalyar D, Boedeker KL, et al. Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: Summary of AAPM Task Group 233. Med Phys. 2019;46(11):e735-e756.
13. Li K, Tang J, Chen GH. Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: experimental assessment of noise performance. Med Phys. 2014;41(4):041906.
14. Greffier J, Van Ngoc Ty C, Fitton I, Frandon J, Beregi JP, Dabli D. Impact of Phantom Size on Low-Energy Virtual Monoenergetic Images of Three Dual-Energy CT Platforms. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(19):3039.
15. Tang K, Wang L, Li R, Lin J, Zheng X, Cao G. Effect of low tube voltage on image quality, radiation dose, and low-contrast detectability at abdominal multidetector CT: phantom study. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012;2012:130169.