Photon-Counting Computed Tomography Versus Energy-Integrating Dual-Energy Computed Tomography: Virtual Noncontrast Image Quality Comparison

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the image quality of portal venous phase-derived virtual noncontrast (VNC) images from photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) with energy-integrating dual-energy computed tomography (EI-DECT) in the same patient using quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Methods: Consecutive patients retrospectively identified with available portal venous phase-derived VNC images from both PCCT and EI-DECT were included. Patients without available VNC in picture archiving and communication system in PCCT or prior EI-DECT and non-portal venous phase acquisitions were excluded. Three fellowship-trained radiologists blinded to VNC source qualitatively assessed VNC images on a 5-point scale for overall image quality, image noise, small structure delineation, noise texture, artifacts, and degree of iodine removal. Quantitative assessment used region-of-interest measurements within the aorta at 4 standard locations, both psoas muscles, both renal cortices, spleen, retroperitoneal fat, and inferior vena cava. Attenuation (Hounsfield unit), quantitative noise (Hounsfield unit SD), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) (CNR vascular , CNR kidney , CNR spleen , CNR fat ), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (SNR vascular , SNR kidney , SNR spleen , SNR fat ), and radiation dose were compared between PCCT and EI-DECT with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

Results: A total of 74 patients (27 men; mean ± SD age, 63 ± 13 years) were included. Computed tomography dose index volumes for PCCT and EI-DECT were 9.2 ± 3.5 mGy and 9.4 ± 9.0 mGy, respectively ( P = 0.06). Qualitatively, PCCT VNC images had better overall image quality, image noise, small structure delineation, noise texture, and fewer artifacts (all P < 0.00001). Virtual noncontrast images from PCCT had lower attenuation (all P < 0.05), noise ( P = 0.006), and higher CNR ( P < 0.0001-0.04). Contrast-enhanced structures had lower SNR on PCCT ( P = 0.001, 0.002), reflecting greater contrast removal. The SNRfat (nonenhancing) was higher for PCCT than EI-DECT ( P < 0.00001).

Conclusions: Virtual noncontrast images from PCCT had improved image quality, lower noise, improved CNR and SNR compared with those derived from EI-DECT.