Purpose To investigate whether photon-counting detector (PCD) technology can improve dose-reduced chest computed tomography (CT) image quality compared with that attained with conventional energy-integrating detector (EID) technology in vivo. Materials and Methods This was a HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved study, with informed consent from patients. Dose-reduced spiral unenhanced lung EID and PCD CT examinations were performed in 30 asymptomatic volunteers in accordance with manufacturer-recommended guidelines for CT lung cancer screening (120-kVp tube voltage, 20-mAs reference tube current-time product for both detectors). Quantitative analysis of images included measurement of mean attenuation, noise power spectrum (NPS), and lung nodule contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Images were qualitatively analyzed by three radiologists blinded to detector type. Reproducibility was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). McNemar, paired t, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare image quality. Results Thirty study subjects were evaluated (mean age, 55.0 years ± 8.7 [standard deviation]; 14 men). Of these patients, 10 had a normal body mass index (BMI) (BMI range, 18.5-24.9 kg/m²; group 1), 10 were overweight (BMI range, 25.0-29.9 kg/m²; group 2), and 10 were obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m², group 3). PCD diagnostic quality was higher than EID diagnostic quality (P = .016, P = .016, and P = .013 for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively), with significantly better NPS and image quality scores for lung, soft tissue, and bone and with fewer beam-hardening artifacts (all P < .001). Image noise was significantly lower for PCD images in all BMI groups (P < .001 for groups 1 and 3, P < .01 for group 2), with higher CNR for lung nodule detection (12.1 ± 1.7 vs 10.0 ± 1.8, P < .001). Inter- and intrareader reproducibility were good (all ICC > 0.800). Conclusion Initial human experience with dose-reduced PCD chest CT demonstrated lower image noise compared with conventional EID CT, with better diagnostic quality and lung nodule CNR. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

	Year	Citations

Abstract

References