Interphantom and interscanner variations for Hounsfield units-establishment of reference values for HU in a commercial QA phantom

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 55, Issue 17, 2010, Pages 5123-5135

  Sande, Erlend Peter Skaug ^a,b   Martinsen, Anne Catrine Trægde ^a,b   Hole, Eli Olaug ^b   Olerud, Hilde M ^b,c  

^a OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c NORWEGIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AUTHORITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; GENERAL APPARATUS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD;

MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY SCANNERS, X-RAY COMPUTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 78149299093     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/17/015     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Birnbaum B A, Hindman N, Lee J and Babb J S 2007 Multi-detector row CT attenuation measurements: assessment of intra-and interscanner variability with an anthropomorphic body CT phantom Radiology 242 109-19
2. Boland G W L, Lee M J, Gazelle G S, Halpern E F, McNicholas M M J and Mueller P R 1998 Characterization of adrenal masses using unenhanced CT: an analysis of the CT literature Am. J. Roentgenol. 171 201-4
3. Bosniak M A 1986 The current radiological approach to renal cysts Radiology 158 1-10
4. Cann C E 1987 Quantitative CT applications: comparison of current scanners Radiology 162 257-61
5. Groell R, Rienmueller R, Schaffler G J, Portugaller H R, Graif E and Willfurth P 2000 CT number variations due to different image acquisition and reconstruction parameters: a thorax phantom study Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 24 53-8
6. Hamrahian A H, Ioachimescu A G, Remer E M, Motta-Ramirez G, Bogabathina H, Levin H S, Reddy S, Gill I S, Siperstein A and Bravo E L 2005 Clinical utility of noncontrast computed tomography attenuation value (Hounsfield units) to differentiate adrenal adenomas/hyperplasias from nonadenomas: Cleveland clinic experience J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 90 871-7
7. Hopper K D, Gouldy C A, Kasales C J, TenHave T R and Fisher A L 1997 The effect of helical CT on x-ray attenuation J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 21 152-5
8. Korobkin M 2000 CT characterization of adrenal masses: the time has come Radiology 217 629-32
9. Levi C, Gray J E, McCullough E C and Hattery R R 1982 The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values Am. J. Roentgenol. 139 443-7
10. McCullough E C and Morin R L 1983 CT-number variability in thoracic geometry Am. J. Roentgenol. 141 135-40
11. Reilly A J and Weir N 2005 Automated analysis of Catphan 500 and 600 images from single and multi-slice CT scanners CT Users Group Meeting at Newcastle General Hospital (6th October 2005) http://ctug.org.uk/meet05-10-06/ index.html
12. ® 500 and 600 Manual (Salem, NY: The Phantom Laboratory) p 17
13. Wegener O H 1993 Whole Body Computed Tomography 2nd edn (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell) pp 6-7
14. Yajima Y, Narui T, Ishii M, Abe R, Ohtsuki M, Goto Y, Endo S, Yamada K and Ito M 1982 Computed tomography in the diagnosis of fatty liver: total lipid content and computed tomography number Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 136 337-42
15. Zerhouni E A et al 1983 A standard phantom for quantitative CT analysis of pulmonary nodules Radiology 149 767-73