Assessment of Low-Contrast Detectability on ACR CT Phantom with Variations in Tube Voltage and Object Size Using 2-AFC Method
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST251222676Keywords:
Computed Tomography (CT), low-contrast detectability, 2-Alternatife Forced Choice (2-AFC), tube voltage, medical physicistAbstract
This study aims to assess low-contrast detectability (LCD) in the American College of Radiology (ACR) computed tomography (CT) phantom at various tube voltages and object sizes using the two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) method. The experiment was conducted using the low-contrast module, which contains objects with contrast of 6 HU and with diameters of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mm. The phantom was scanned using a Philips CT scanner at three tube voltage settings: 90 kV, 120 kV, and 140 kV. Two region of interests (ROIs) were created for both the object and background and displayed through the IndoQCT software, resulting in 300 randomly paired images (questions). These images were independently assessed by seven medical physicists with over two years of clinical experience to identify the presence of low-contrast objects. The IndoQCT software automatically calculated the Percent Correct (PC) for each respondent, and the LCD performance was analyzed based on these PC values. The results showed that larger object sizes corresponded with improved detection performance. The 90 kV setting yielded optimal detection for larger objects (i.e., 5 and 6 mm), while 120 kV was more effective for smaller objects (i.e., 2–4 mm). Conversely, 140 kV resulted in the lowest detection performance across all object sizes. These findings suggest that lower tube voltages can enhance LCD despite increased image noise. Additionally, the variability among observers was minimal, with a p-value >0,5 indicating no significant differences in their ability to assess LCD.
Downloads
References
E. Kunarsih, I. Pratama, and S. Sudradjat, “Analysis of Indonesia regional radiation dose profile for general radiography and CT-scan,” AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 030006, 2023. doi: 10.1063/5.0173057.
L. E. Lubis, R. Rafika, A. D. Noerwasana, R. Suryanti, and D. S. Soejoko, “Performance evaluation of computed tomography scanners in Indonesia: recommendation from a nation-wide study,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 200, no. 7, pp. 700–706, 2024.
B. Wiweko, A. Zesario, and P. G. Agung, “Overview the development of tele health and mobile health application in Indonesia,” Proc. Int. Conf. on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), pp. 9–14, 2016. doi: 10.1109/ICACSIS.2016.7872714.
A. A. Z. Imran, S. Wang, D. Pal, S. Dutta, B. Patel, E. Zucker, and A. Wang, “Personalized CT organ dose estimation from scout images,” Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021, vol. 24, Part IV, pp. 488–498, 2021.
Z. Al-Ameen and G. Sulong, “Prevalent Degradations and Processing Challenges of Computed Tomography Medical Images: A Compendious Analysis,” International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 107–118, 2016. doi: 10.14257/ijgdc.2016.9.10.10.
A. Omigbodun, J. Y. Vaishnav, and S. S. Hsieh, “Rapid measurement of the low contrast detectability of CT scanners,” Medical Physics, 2020. doi: 10.1002/mp.14657.
M. Geso et al., “Modified Contrast-Detail Phantom for Determination of the CT Scanners Abilities for Low-Contrast Detection,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 14, pp. 6661, 2021. doi: 10.3390/app11146661.
E. Setiawati, C. Anam, W. Widyasari, and G. Dougherty, “The quantitative effect of noise and object diameter on low-contrast detectability of AAPM CT performance phantom images,” Atom Indonesia, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 61–66, 2023. doi: 10.55981/aij.2023.1228.
M. El Mansouri, A. Choukri, M. Talbi, and O. K. Hakam, “Impact of Tube Voltage on Radiation Dose (CTDI) and Image Quality at Chest CT Examination,” Atom Indonesia, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 105–109, 2021. doi: 10.17146/aij.2021.1120.
T. N. Rahmawati et al., “Evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio measurements using IndoQCT on images of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) CT performance phantom,” AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 3210, no. 1, 030007, 2024. doi: 10.1063/5.0228089.
D. Novitasari, C. Anam, E. Setiawati, R. Amilia, A. Naufal, and A. D. Reskianto, “Evaluation of IndoQCT for automatic measurement of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) on American College of Radiology (ACR) CT phantom images,” AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 3210, no. 1, 030008, 2024. doi: 10.1063/5.0228091.
O. Christianson et al., “An Improved Index of Image Quality for Task-based Performance of CT Iterative Reconstruction across Three Commercial Implementations,” Radiology, vol. 275, no. 3, pp. 725–734, 2015. doi: 10.1148/radiol.15132091.
J. M. Kofler et al., “Assessment Of Low-Contrast Resolution For The American College Of Radiology Computed Tomographic Accreditation Program: What Is The Impact Of Iterative Reconstruction?” Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 619–623, 2015.
J. Fan et al., “Evaluation of low contrast detectability performance using two-alternative forced choice method on computed tomography dose reduction algorithms,” Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, vol. 8318, 83181F, 2012. doi: 10.1117/12.910754.
G. L. Ardila Pardo et al., “3D Printing Of Anatomically Realistic Phantoms With Detection Tasks To Assess The Diagnostic Performance Of CT Images,” European Radiology, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 4557–4563, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06808-7.
P. M. Azevedo-Marques, L. R. Borges, and M. A. C. Vieira, “A 2-AFC Study To Validate Artificially Inserted Microcalcification Clusters In Digital Mammography,” Proc. SPIE, vol. 11312, 2020. doi: 10.1117/12.2513031.
T. Njølstad et al., “Low-Contrast Detectability And Potential For Radiation Dose Reduction Using Deep Learning Image Reconstruction—A 20-Reader Study On A Semi-Anthropomorphic Liver Phantom,” European Journal of Radiology Open, vol. 9, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2022.100418.
S. K. N. Dilger et al., “Localization Of Liver Lesions In Abdominal CT Imaging: I. Correlation Of Human Observer Performance Between Anatomical and Uniform Backgrounds,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 64, no. 10, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab1a45.
R. Dewantari, C. Anam, H. Sutanto, A. Naufal, R. Amilia, S. I. Izmi, H. S. Putri, P. S. Dewi, I. R. Ilham, F. Haryanto, and A. M. B. Setiawan, “2-AFC for detectability of low contrast object of CT images scanned with two doses and reconstructed with various iterative reconstruction (IR) levels,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 429–434, 2024. doi: 10.32628/IJSRST24114307
I. Hernandez-Giron, J. Geleijns, A. Calzado, and W. J. H. Veldkamp, “Automated assessment of low contrast sensitivity for CT systems using a model observer,” Medical Physics, vol. 38, suppl. 1, pp. S25–S35, 2011. doi: 10.1118/1.3577757.
I. Hernandez-Giron, A. Calzado, J. Geleijns, R. M. S. Joemai, and W. J. H. Veldkamp, “Low Contrast Detectability Performance Of Model Observers Based On CT Phantom Images: Kvp Influence,” Physica Medica, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 798–807, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.04.012.
H. W. Thompson, R. Mera, and C. Prasad, “The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA),” Nutritional Neuroscience, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 1999. doi: 10.1080/1028415X.1999.11747262.
R. Riyadi, C. Anam, H. Sutanto, A. Naufal, and R. Amilia, “An algorithm for automatic low-contrast detection system and its evaluation for images with various phantom rotations,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 637–645, 2024. doi: 10.32628/IJSRST241161115.
S. N. Inayah, C. Anam, H. Sutanto, A. Naufal, and R. Amilia, “Comparative analysis of low-contrast detectability (LCD) using a 4-AFC: Filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) images,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 407–412, 2025. doi: 10.32628/IJSRST2512143
D. R. Dance, S. Christofides, A. D. A. Maidment, I. D. Mclean, and K. H. Ng, Diagnostic Radiology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students, IAEA, 2014.
E. Seeram, Computed Tomography: Physical Principles, Clinical Applications, And Quality Control, 4th ed., St. Louis, MO: Elsevier, 2016.
J. Jumriah, S. Dewang, B. Abdullah, and D. Tahir, “Study of Image Quality, Radiation Dose and Low Contrast Resolution from MSCT Head by Using Low Tube Voltage,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 979, no. 1, 012078, 2018. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/979/1/012078.
A. Mokhtar, Z. A. Aabdelbary, A. Sarhan, H. M. Gad, and M. T. Ahmed, “Studies on the radiation dose, image quality and low contrast detectability from MSCT abdomen by using low tube voltage,” Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, vol. 52, no. 1, 2021. doi: 10.1186/s43055-021-00613-y.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
