Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Artifact Reduction with Dual Energy Or IMAR: Who's Winning ?

no image available
E Elder

E Elder*, E Schreibmann , A Dhabaan , Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University Atlanta, GA


SU-F-T-407 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: The purpose of this abstract was to evaluate the performance of commercial strategies for artifact reduction in radiation oncology settings. The iterative metal artifact reduction (Siemens iMAR) algorithm and monoenergetic virtual datasets reconstructed from dual energy scans are compared side-by-side in their ability to image in the presence of metal inserts.

Methods: A CIRS ATOM Dosimetry Verification Phantom was scanned with and without a metal insert on a SOMATOM Definition AS dual energy scanner. Images with the metal insert were reconstructed with (a) a tradition single energy CT scan with the iMAR option implemented, using different artifact reduction settings and (b) a monoenergetic scan calculated from dual energy scans by recovering differences in the energy-dependence of the attenuation coefficients of different materials and then creating a virtual monoenergetic scan from these coefficients. The iMAR and monoenergetic scans were then compared with the metal-free scan to assess changes in HU numbers and noise within a region around the metal insert.

Results: Both the iMAR and dual energy scans reduced artifacts produced by the metal insert. However the iMAR results are dependent of the selected algorithm settings, with a mean HU difference ranging from 0.65 to 90.40 for different options. The mean differences without the iMAR correction were 38.74. When using the dual energy scan, the mean differences were 4.53, that is however attributed to increased noise and not artifacts, as the dual energy scan had the lowest skewness (2.52) compared to the iMAR scans (ranging from 3.90 to 4.88) and the lowest kurtosis (5.72 for dual energy, range of 18.19 to 27.36 for iMAR).

Conclusion: Both approaches accurately recovered HU numbers, however the dual energy method provided smaller residual artifacts.

Contact Email: