TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems
T2 - Summary of AAPM Task Group 233
AU - Samei, Ehsan
AU - Bakalyar, Donovan
AU - Boedeker, Kirsten L.
AU - Brady, Samuel
AU - Fan, Jiahua
AU - Leng, Shuai
AU - Myers, Kyle J.
AU - Popescu, Lucretiu M.
AU - Ramirez Giraldo, Juan Carlos
AU - Ranallo, Frank
AU - Solomon, Justin
AU - Vaishnav, Jay
AU - Wang, Jia
N1 - Funding Information:
Authors gratefully acknowledge the input and refinements by Nicholas Bevins, Guang-Hong Chen, Dianna Cody, Eric Gingold, Loretta Johnson, David Jordan, Xiang Li, Jeffrey Limmer, Cynthia McCollough, Michael McNitt-Gray, and Christina Skourou.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine
PY - 2019/11/1
Y1 - 2019/11/1
N2 - Background: The rapid development and complexity of new x-ray computed tomography (CT) technologies and the need for evidence-based optimization of image quality with respect to radiation and contrast media dose call for an updated approach towards CT performance evaluation. Aims: This report offers updated testing guidelines for testing CT systems with an enhanced focus on the operational performance including iterative reconstructions and automatic exposure control (AEC) techniques. Materials and Methods: The report was developed based on a comprehensive review of best methods and practices in the scientific literature. The detailed methods include the assessment of 1) CT noise (magnitude, texture, nonuniformity, inhomogeneity), 2) resolution (task transfer function under varying conditions and its scalar reflections), 3) task-based performance (detectability, estimability), and 4) AEC performance (spatial, noise, and mA concordance of attenuation and exposure modulation). The methods include varying reconstruction and tube current modulation conditions, standardized testing protocols, and standardized quantities and metrology to facilitate tracking, benchmarking, and quantitative comparisons. Results: The methods, implemented in cited publications, are robust to provide a representative reflection of CT system performance as used operationally in a clinical facility. The methods include recommendations for phantoms and phantom image analysis. Discussion: In line with the current professional trajectory of the field toward quantitation and operational engagement, the stated methods offer quantitation that is more predictive of clinical performance than specification-based approaches. They can pave the way to approach performance testing of new CT systems not only in terms of acceptance testing (i.e., verifying a device meets predefined specifications), but also system commissioning (i.e., determining how the system can be used most effectively in clinical practice). Conclusion: We offer a set of common testing procedures that can be utilized towards the optimal clinical utilization of CT imaging devices, benchmarking across varying systems and times, and a basis to develop future performance-based criteria for CT imaging.
AB - Background: The rapid development and complexity of new x-ray computed tomography (CT) technologies and the need for evidence-based optimization of image quality with respect to radiation and contrast media dose call for an updated approach towards CT performance evaluation. Aims: This report offers updated testing guidelines for testing CT systems with an enhanced focus on the operational performance including iterative reconstructions and automatic exposure control (AEC) techniques. Materials and Methods: The report was developed based on a comprehensive review of best methods and practices in the scientific literature. The detailed methods include the assessment of 1) CT noise (magnitude, texture, nonuniformity, inhomogeneity), 2) resolution (task transfer function under varying conditions and its scalar reflections), 3) task-based performance (detectability, estimability), and 4) AEC performance (spatial, noise, and mA concordance of attenuation and exposure modulation). The methods include varying reconstruction and tube current modulation conditions, standardized testing protocols, and standardized quantities and metrology to facilitate tracking, benchmarking, and quantitative comparisons. Results: The methods, implemented in cited publications, are robust to provide a representative reflection of CT system performance as used operationally in a clinical facility. The methods include recommendations for phantoms and phantom image analysis. Discussion: In line with the current professional trajectory of the field toward quantitation and operational engagement, the stated methods offer quantitation that is more predictive of clinical performance than specification-based approaches. They can pave the way to approach performance testing of new CT systems not only in terms of acceptance testing (i.e., verifying a device meets predefined specifications), but also system commissioning (i.e., determining how the system can be used most effectively in clinical practice). Conclusion: We offer a set of common testing procedures that can be utilized towards the optimal clinical utilization of CT imaging devices, benchmarking across varying systems and times, and a basis to develop future performance-based criteria for CT imaging.
KW - acceptance testing
KW - computed tomography
KW - detectability
KW - noise
KW - quality control
KW - resolution
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073980886&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073980886&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/mp.13763
DO - 10.1002/mp.13763
M3 - Article
C2 - 31408540
AN - SCOPUS:85073980886
SN - 0094-2405
VL - 46
SP - e735-e756
JO - Medical physics
JF - Medical physics
IS - 11
ER -