The effect of different CT scanners, scan parameters and scanning setup on Hounsfield units and calibrated bone density: a phantom study

This study investigated the effect of different CT scanners, reconstruction protocols, scan positions, and air gaps on HU and/or calibrated calcium hydroxyapatite concentrations (CaHA). Phantoms containing bone-like materials were scanned on four different CT scanners. The effect of slice thickness,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biomedical physics & engineering express 2018-08, Vol.4 (5), p.55013
Main Authors: Free, Jeffrey, Eggermont, Florieke, Derikx, Loes, van Leeuwen, Ruud, van der Linden, Yvette, Jansen, Wim, Raaijmakers, Esther, Tanck, Esther, Kaatee, Robert
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
calcium hydroxyapatite
CT protocols
CT scanner
Hounsfield units
inter-scanner differences
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-d15252e4d6ee89b7a149aa4a5ef4a1dee270a56b2fc98aa3163c58c788e63fa73
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-d15252e4d6ee89b7a149aa4a5ef4a1dee270a56b2fc98aa3163c58c788e63fa73
container_end_page
container_issue 5
container_start_page 55013
container_title Biomedical physics & engineering express
container_volume 4
creator Free, Jeffrey
Eggermont, Florieke
Derikx, Loes
van Leeuwen, Ruud
van der Linden, Yvette
Jansen, Wim
Raaijmakers, Esther
Tanck, Esther
Kaatee, Robert
description This study investigated the effect of different CT scanners, reconstruction protocols, scan positions, and air gaps on HU and/or calibrated calcium hydroxyapatite concentrations (CaHA). Phantoms containing bone-like materials were scanned on four different CT scanners. The effect of slice thickness, field of view (FOV) and reconstruction kernel on HU was investigated. Using clinical scan and reconstruction protocols and a calibration phantom, HU and CaHA were determined for different positions, and air gaps between phantom and calibration phantom. Changing reconstruction kernel considerably affected the HU (range −31 HU to 64 HU), whereas slice thickness and FOV did not. Inter-scanner differences in HU were
doi_str_mv 10.1088/2057-1976/aad66a
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>iop_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1088_2057_1976_aad66a</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>bpexaad66a</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-d15252e4d6ee89b7a149aa4a5ef4a1dee270a56b2fc98aa3163c58c788e63fa73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kDFPwzAQhSMEElXpzuiNpaF2EjsOG6qAIlViKbN1ic_UVetEtiPRf8DPJiUIMcB0T3fvPZ2-JLlm9JZRKRcZ5WXKqlIsALQQcJZMflbnv_RlMgthRyllIhOi4pPkY7NFgsZgE0lriLaD9OgiWW5IaMA59GH-pUgHHg4YhwUBp8erdW8kYOw70jqyansXjMW9Jr2zcbQ1sLe1h4ia1K1DotEFG493BEi3BRfbAwmx18er5MLAPuDse06T18eHzXKVrl-enpf367TJSxlTzXjGMyy0QJRVXQIrKoACOJoCmEbMSgpc1JlpKgmQM5E3XDallChyA2U-TejY2_g2BI9Gdd4ewB8Vo-oEU51oqRMtNcIcIjdjxLad2rW9d8ODqu7wXRWKK8o5ZbnqtBmc8z-c_xZ_AoWEhk8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of different CT scanners, scan parameters and scanning setup on Hounsfield units and calibrated bone density: a phantom study</title><source>Institute of Physics</source><creator>Free, Jeffrey ; Eggermont, Florieke ; Derikx, Loes ; van Leeuwen, Ruud ; van der Linden, Yvette ; Jansen, Wim ; Raaijmakers, Esther ; Tanck, Esther ; Kaatee, Robert</creator><creatorcontrib>Free, Jeffrey ; Eggermont, Florieke ; Derikx, Loes ; van Leeuwen, Ruud ; van der Linden, Yvette ; Jansen, Wim ; Raaijmakers, Esther ; Tanck, Esther ; Kaatee, Robert</creatorcontrib><description>This study investigated the effect of different CT scanners, reconstruction protocols, scan positions, and air gaps on HU and/or calibrated calcium hydroxyapatite concentrations (CaHA). Phantoms containing bone-like materials were scanned on four different CT scanners. The effect of slice thickness, field of view (FOV) and reconstruction kernel on HU was investigated. Using clinical scan and reconstruction protocols and a calibration phantom, HU and CaHA were determined for different positions, and air gaps between phantom and calibration phantom. Changing reconstruction kernel considerably affected the HU (range −31 HU to 64 HU), whereas slice thickness and FOV did not. Inter-scanner differences in HU were &lt;88 HU and decreased to &lt;47 CaHA after calibration. Different positions of the phantom resulted in differences (on average up to −26 HU and −24 CaHA). An air gap of 2.5 cm atop the calibration phantom resulted in errors up to −41 CaHA. If absolute HU and calibrated CaHA are needed, different reconstruction kernels and changes in position within the FOV as well as air gaps should be avoided.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2057-1976</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2057-1976</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/aad66a</identifier><identifier>CODEN: NJOPFM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>calcium hydroxyapatite ; CT protocols ; CT scanner ; Hounsfield units ; inter-scanner differences</subject><ispartof>Biomedical physics &amp; engineering express, 2018-08, Vol.4 (5), p.55013</ispartof><rights>2018 IOP Publishing Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-d15252e4d6ee89b7a149aa4a5ef4a1dee270a56b2fc98aa3163c58c788e63fa73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-d15252e4d6ee89b7a149aa4a5ef4a1dee270a56b2fc98aa3163c58c788e63fa73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1573-2613</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Free, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggermont, Florieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Derikx, Loes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Leeuwen, Ruud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Linden, Yvette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansen, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raaijmakers, Esther</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanck, Esther</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaatee, Robert</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of different CT scanners, scan parameters and scanning setup on Hounsfield units and calibrated bone density: a phantom study</title><title>Biomedical physics &amp; engineering express</title><addtitle>BPEX</addtitle><addtitle>Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express</addtitle><description>This study investigated the effect of different CT scanners, reconstruction protocols, scan positions, and air gaps on HU and/or calibrated calcium hydroxyapatite concentrations (CaHA). Phantoms containing bone-like materials were scanned on four different CT scanners. The effect of slice thickness, field of view (FOV) and reconstruction kernel on HU was investigated. Using clinical scan and reconstruction protocols and a calibration phantom, HU and CaHA were determined for different positions, and air gaps between phantom and calibration phantom. Changing reconstruction kernel considerably affected the HU (range −31 HU to 64 HU), whereas slice thickness and FOV did not. Inter-scanner differences in HU were &lt;88 HU and decreased to &lt;47 CaHA after calibration. Different positions of the phantom resulted in differences (on average up to −26 HU and −24 CaHA). An air gap of 2.5 cm atop the calibration phantom resulted in errors up to −41 CaHA. If absolute HU and calibrated CaHA are needed, different reconstruction kernels and changes in position within the FOV as well as air gaps should be avoided.</description><subject>calcium hydroxyapatite</subject><subject>CT protocols</subject><subject>CT scanner</subject><subject>Hounsfield units</subject><subject>inter-scanner differences</subject><issn>2057-1976</issn><issn>2057-1976</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kDFPwzAQhSMEElXpzuiNpaF2EjsOG6qAIlViKbN1ic_UVetEtiPRf8DPJiUIMcB0T3fvPZ2-JLlm9JZRKRcZ5WXKqlIsALQQcJZMflbnv_RlMgthRyllIhOi4pPkY7NFgsZgE0lriLaD9OgiWW5IaMA59GH-pUgHHg4YhwUBp8erdW8kYOw70jqyansXjMW9Jr2zcbQ1sLe1h4ia1K1DotEFG493BEi3BRfbAwmx18er5MLAPuDse06T18eHzXKVrl-enpf367TJSxlTzXjGMyy0QJRVXQIrKoACOJoCmEbMSgpc1JlpKgmQM5E3XDallChyA2U-TejY2_g2BI9Gdd4ewB8Vo-oEU51oqRMtNcIcIjdjxLad2rW9d8ODqu7wXRWKK8o5ZbnqtBmc8z-c_xZ_AoWEhk8</recordid><startdate>20180807</startdate><enddate>20180807</enddate><creator>Free, Jeffrey</creator><creator>Eggermont, Florieke</creator><creator>Derikx, Loes</creator><creator>van Leeuwen, Ruud</creator><creator>van der Linden, Yvette</creator><creator>Jansen, Wim</creator><creator>Raaijmakers, Esther</creator><creator>Tanck, Esther</creator><creator>Kaatee, Robert</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1573-2613</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180807</creationdate><title>The effect of different CT scanners, scan parameters and scanning setup on Hounsfield units and calibrated bone density: a phantom study</title><author>Free, Jeffrey ; Eggermont, Florieke ; Derikx, Loes ; van Leeuwen, Ruud ; van der Linden, Yvette ; Jansen, Wim ; Raaijmakers, Esther ; Tanck, Esther ; Kaatee, Robert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-d15252e4d6ee89b7a149aa4a5ef4a1dee270a56b2fc98aa3163c58c788e63fa73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>calcium hydroxyapatite</topic><topic>CT protocols</topic><topic>CT scanner</topic><topic>Hounsfield units</topic><topic>inter-scanner differences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Free, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggermont, Florieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Derikx, Loes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Leeuwen, Ruud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Linden, Yvette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansen, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raaijmakers, Esther</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanck, Esther</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaatee, Robert</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Biomedical physics &amp; engineering express</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Free, Jeffrey</au><au>Eggermont, Florieke</au><au>Derikx, Loes</au><au>van Leeuwen, Ruud</au><au>van der Linden, Yvette</au><au>Jansen, Wim</au><au>Raaijmakers, Esther</au><au>Tanck, Esther</au><au>Kaatee, Robert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of different CT scanners, scan parameters and scanning setup on Hounsfield units and calibrated bone density: a phantom study</atitle><jtitle>Biomedical physics &amp; engineering express</jtitle><stitle>BPEX</stitle><addtitle>Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express</addtitle><date>2018-08-07</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>55013</spage><pages>55013-</pages><issn>2057-1976</issn><eissn>2057-1976</eissn><coden>NJOPFM</coden><abstract>This study investigated the effect of different CT scanners, reconstruction protocols, scan positions, and air gaps on HU and/or calibrated calcium hydroxyapatite concentrations (CaHA). Phantoms containing bone-like materials were scanned on four different CT scanners. The effect of slice thickness, field of view (FOV) and reconstruction kernel on HU was investigated. Using clinical scan and reconstruction protocols and a calibration phantom, HU and CaHA were determined for different positions, and air gaps between phantom and calibration phantom. Changing reconstruction kernel considerably affected the HU (range −31 HU to 64 HU), whereas slice thickness and FOV did not. Inter-scanner differences in HU were &lt;88 HU and decreased to &lt;47 CaHA after calibration. Different positions of the phantom resulted in differences (on average up to −26 HU and −24 CaHA). An air gap of 2.5 cm atop the calibration phantom resulted in errors up to −41 CaHA. If absolute HU and calibrated CaHA are needed, different reconstruction kernels and changes in position within the FOV as well as air gaps should be avoided.</abstract><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><doi>10.1088/2057-1976/aad66a</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1573-2613</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2057-1976
ispartof Biomedical physics & engineering express, 2018-08, Vol.4 (5), p.55013
issn 2057-1976
2057-1976
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1088_2057_1976_aad66a
source Institute of Physics
subjects calcium hydroxyapatite
CT protocols
CT scanner
Hounsfield units
inter-scanner differences
title The effect of different CT scanners, scan parameters and scanning setup on Hounsfield units and calibrated bone density: a phantom study
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T22%3A30%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-iop_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20different%20CT%20scanners,%20scan%20parameters%20and%20scanning%20setup%20on%20Hounsfield%20units%20and%20calibrated%20bone%20density:%20a%20phantom%20study&rft.jtitle=Biomedical%20physics%20&%20engineering%20express&rft.au=Free,%20Jeffrey&rft.date=2018-08-07&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=55013&rft.pages=55013-&rft.issn=2057-1976&rft.eissn=2057-1976&rft.coden=NJOPFM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/2057-1976/aad66a&rft_dat=%3Ciop_cross%3Ebpexaad66a%3C/iop_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-d15252e4d6ee89b7a149aa4a5ef4a1dee270a56b2fc98aa3163c58c788e63fa73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true