Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system

Shadpour Demehri, A. Muhit, Wojciech Zbijewski, Joseph Webster Stayman, J. Yorkston, N. Packard, R. Senn, D. Yang, D. Foos, Gaurav Thawait, Laura M Fayad, A. Chhabra, J. A. Carrino, Jeff Siewerdsen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To assess visualization tasks using cone-beam CT (CBCT) compared to multi-detector CT (MDCT) for musculoskeletal extremity imaging. Methods: Ten cadaveric hands and ten knees were examined using a dedicated CBCT prototype and a clinical multi-detector CT using nominal protocols (80kVp-108mAs for CBCT; 120kVp- 300mAs for MDCT). Soft tissue and bone visualization tasks were assessed by four radiologists using five-point satisfaction (for CBCT and MDCT individually) and five-point preference (side-by-side CBCT versus MDCT image quality comparison) rating tests. Ratings were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and observer agreement was assessed using the Kappa-statistic. Results: Knee CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “good” (median scores 5 and 4) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Hand CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “adequate” (median scores 5 and 3) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Preference tests rated CBCT equivalent or superior to MDCT for bone visualization and favoured the MDCT for soft tissue visualization tasks. Intraobserver agreement for CBCT satisfaction tests was fair to almost perfect (κ ~ 0.26–0.92), and interobserver agreement was fair to moderate (κ ~ 0.27–0.54). Conclusion: CBCT provided excellent image quality for bone visualization and adequate image quality for soft tissue visualization tasks. Key Points: • CBCT provided adequate image quality for diagnostic tasks in extremity imaging. • CBCT images were “excellent” for “bone” and “good/adequate” for “soft tissue” visualization tasks. • CBCT image quality was equivalent/superior to MDCT for bone visualization tasks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1742-1751
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Radiology
Volume25
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015

Fingerprint

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Extremities
Bone and Bones
Knee
Hand
Nonparametric Statistics

Keywords

  • Cone-beam computed tomography
  • Musculoskeletal
  • Orthopedics
  • Rheumatology
  • Weight-bearing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system. / Demehri, Shadpour; Muhit, A.; Zbijewski, Wojciech; Stayman, Joseph Webster; Yorkston, J.; Packard, N.; Senn, R.; Yang, D.; Foos, D.; Thawait, Gaurav; Fayad, Laura M; Chhabra, A.; Carrino, J. A.; Siewerdsen, Jeff.

In: European Radiology, Vol. 25, No. 6, 01.06.2015, p. 1742-1751.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Demehri, Shadpour ; Muhit, A. ; Zbijewski, Wojciech ; Stayman, Joseph Webster ; Yorkston, J. ; Packard, N. ; Senn, R. ; Yang, D. ; Foos, D. ; Thawait, Gaurav ; Fayad, Laura M ; Chhabra, A. ; Carrino, J. A. ; Siewerdsen, Jeff. / Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system. In: European Radiology. 2015 ; Vol. 25, No. 6. pp. 1742-1751.
@article{ddd73f2dcb3f4899b4c90e5e0cdb6527,
title = "Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system",
abstract = "Objective: To assess visualization tasks using cone-beam CT (CBCT) compared to multi-detector CT (MDCT) for musculoskeletal extremity imaging. Methods: Ten cadaveric hands and ten knees were examined using a dedicated CBCT prototype and a clinical multi-detector CT using nominal protocols (80kVp-108mAs for CBCT; 120kVp- 300mAs for MDCT). Soft tissue and bone visualization tasks were assessed by four radiologists using five-point satisfaction (for CBCT and MDCT individually) and five-point preference (side-by-side CBCT versus MDCT image quality comparison) rating tests. Ratings were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and observer agreement was assessed using the Kappa-statistic. Results: Knee CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “good” (median scores 5 and 4) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Hand CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “adequate” (median scores 5 and 3) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Preference tests rated CBCT equivalent or superior to MDCT for bone visualization and favoured the MDCT for soft tissue visualization tasks. Intraobserver agreement for CBCT satisfaction tests was fair to almost perfect (κ ~ 0.26–0.92), and interobserver agreement was fair to moderate (κ ~ 0.27–0.54). Conclusion: CBCT provided excellent image quality for bone visualization and adequate image quality for soft tissue visualization tasks. Key Points: • CBCT provided adequate image quality for diagnostic tasks in extremity imaging. • CBCT images were “excellent” for “bone” and “good/adequate” for “soft tissue” visualization tasks. • CBCT image quality was equivalent/superior to MDCT for bone visualization tasks.",
keywords = "Cone-beam computed tomography, Musculoskeletal, Orthopedics, Rheumatology, Weight-bearing",
author = "Shadpour Demehri and A. Muhit and Wojciech Zbijewski and Stayman, {Joseph Webster} and J. Yorkston and N. Packard and R. Senn and D. Yang and D. Foos and Gaurav Thawait and Fayad, {Laura M} and A. Chhabra and Carrino, {J. A.} and Jeff Siewerdsen",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00330-014-3546-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "1742--1751",
journal = "European Radiology",
issn = "0938-7994",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system

AU - Demehri, Shadpour

AU - Muhit, A.

AU - Zbijewski, Wojciech

AU - Stayman, Joseph Webster

AU - Yorkston, J.

AU - Packard, N.

AU - Senn, R.

AU - Yang, D.

AU - Foos, D.

AU - Thawait, Gaurav

AU - Fayad, Laura M

AU - Chhabra, A.

AU - Carrino, J. A.

AU - Siewerdsen, Jeff

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - Objective: To assess visualization tasks using cone-beam CT (CBCT) compared to multi-detector CT (MDCT) for musculoskeletal extremity imaging. Methods: Ten cadaveric hands and ten knees were examined using a dedicated CBCT prototype and a clinical multi-detector CT using nominal protocols (80kVp-108mAs for CBCT; 120kVp- 300mAs for MDCT). Soft tissue and bone visualization tasks were assessed by four radiologists using five-point satisfaction (for CBCT and MDCT individually) and five-point preference (side-by-side CBCT versus MDCT image quality comparison) rating tests. Ratings were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and observer agreement was assessed using the Kappa-statistic. Results: Knee CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “good” (median scores 5 and 4) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Hand CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “adequate” (median scores 5 and 3) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Preference tests rated CBCT equivalent or superior to MDCT for bone visualization and favoured the MDCT for soft tissue visualization tasks. Intraobserver agreement for CBCT satisfaction tests was fair to almost perfect (κ ~ 0.26–0.92), and interobserver agreement was fair to moderate (κ ~ 0.27–0.54). Conclusion: CBCT provided excellent image quality for bone visualization and adequate image quality for soft tissue visualization tasks. Key Points: • CBCT provided adequate image quality for diagnostic tasks in extremity imaging. • CBCT images were “excellent” for “bone” and “good/adequate” for “soft tissue” visualization tasks. • CBCT image quality was equivalent/superior to MDCT for bone visualization tasks.

AB - Objective: To assess visualization tasks using cone-beam CT (CBCT) compared to multi-detector CT (MDCT) for musculoskeletal extremity imaging. Methods: Ten cadaveric hands and ten knees were examined using a dedicated CBCT prototype and a clinical multi-detector CT using nominal protocols (80kVp-108mAs for CBCT; 120kVp- 300mAs for MDCT). Soft tissue and bone visualization tasks were assessed by four radiologists using five-point satisfaction (for CBCT and MDCT individually) and five-point preference (side-by-side CBCT versus MDCT image quality comparison) rating tests. Ratings were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and observer agreement was assessed using the Kappa-statistic. Results: Knee CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “good” (median scores 5 and 4) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Hand CBCT images were rated “excellent” or “adequate” (median scores 5 and 3) for “bone” and “soft tissue” visualization tasks. Preference tests rated CBCT equivalent or superior to MDCT for bone visualization and favoured the MDCT for soft tissue visualization tasks. Intraobserver agreement for CBCT satisfaction tests was fair to almost perfect (κ ~ 0.26–0.92), and interobserver agreement was fair to moderate (κ ~ 0.27–0.54). Conclusion: CBCT provided excellent image quality for bone visualization and adequate image quality for soft tissue visualization tasks. Key Points: • CBCT provided adequate image quality for diagnostic tasks in extremity imaging. • CBCT images were “excellent” for “bone” and “good/adequate” for “soft tissue” visualization tasks. • CBCT image quality was equivalent/superior to MDCT for bone visualization tasks.

KW - Cone-beam computed tomography

KW - Musculoskeletal

KW - Orthopedics

KW - Rheumatology

KW - Weight-bearing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940004362&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940004362&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00330-014-3546-6

DO - 10.1007/s00330-014-3546-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 25599933

AN - SCOPUS:84940004362

VL - 25

SP - 1742

EP - 1751

JO - European Radiology

JF - European Radiology

SN - 0938-7994

IS - 6

ER -