10.5061/DRYAD.5J4KH
Wagenaar, Dirk
University Medical Center Groningen
University of Groningen
van der Graaf, Emiel R.
University of Groningen
van der Schaaf, Arjen
University Medical Center Groningen
University of Groningen
Greuter, Marcel J. W.
University Medical Center Groningen
University of Groningen
Data from: Quantitative comparison of commercial and non-commercial metal
artifact reduction techniques in computed tomography
Dryad
dataset
2016
medical imaging
computed tomography
Medical physics
Metal artifact reduction
2016-05-18T00:00:00Z
2016-05-18T00:00:00Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127932
7085247697 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Objectives: Typical streak artifacts known as metal artifacts occur in the
presence of strongly attenuating materials in computed tomography (CT).
Recently, vendors have started offering metal artifact reduction (MAR)
techniques. In addition, a MAR technique called the metal deletion
technique (MDT) is freely available and able to reduce metal artifacts
using reconstructed images. Although a comparison of the MDT to other MAR
techniques exists, a comparison of commercially available MAR techniques
is lacking. The aim of this study was therefore to quantify the difference
in effectiveness of the currently available MAR techniques of different
scanners and the MDT technique. Materials and Methods: Three vendors were
asked to use their preferential CT scanner for applying their MAR
techniques. The scans were performed on a Philips Brilliance ICT 256 (S1),
a GE Discovery CT 750 HD (S2) and a Siemens Somatom Definition AS Open
(S3). The scans were made using an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom
(Kyoto Kagaku, Japan). Three amalgam dental implants were constructed and
inserted between the phantom’s teeth. The average absolute error (AAE) was
calculated for all reconstructions in the proximity of the amalgam
implants. Results: The commercial techniques reduced the AAE by 22.0±1.6%,
16.2±2.6% and 3.3±0.7% for S1 to S3 respectively. After applying the MDT
to uncorrected scans of each scanner the AAE was reduced by 26.1±2.3%,
27.9±1.0% and 28.8±0.5% respectively. The difference in efficiency between
the commercial techniques and the MDT was statistically significant for S2
(p=0.004) and S3 (p<0.001), but not for S1 (p=0.63). Conclusions:
The effectiveness of MAR differs between vendors. S1 performed slightly
better than S2 and both performed better than S3. Furthermore, for our
phantom and outcome measure the MDT was more effective than the commercial
MAR technique on all scanners.
S1_MA_1_MDTA CT scan made by scanner 1 containing metal implants and
reconstructed using the MDT.S1_MA_1A CT scan made by scanner 1 containing
metal implants and reconstructed using the standard
algorithm.S1_MA_3_OMARA CT scan made by scanner 1 containing metal
implants and reconstructed using OMAR.S1_MA_1_OMARA CT scan made by
scanner 1 containing metal implants and reconstructed using
OMAR.S1_MA_2_OMARA CT scan made by scanner 1 containing metal implants and
reconstructed using OMAR.S1_MA_3_MDTA CT scan made by scanner 1 containing
metal implants and reconstructed using the MDT.S1_MA_3A CT scan made by
scanner 1 containing metal implants and reconstructed using the standard
algorithm.S1_MiscMiscellaneous data from scanner 1 (e.g. topogram, dose
report)S1_Ref_1A CT scan made by scanner 1 containing no metal
implants.S1_Ref_2A CT scan made by scanner 1 containing no metal
implants.S1_Ref_3A CT scan made by scanner 1 containing no metal
implants.S2_MA_1_MDTA CT scan made by scanner 2 containing metal implants
and reconstructed using the MDT.S2_MA_1_sMARA CT scan made by scanner 2
containing metal implants and reconstructed using sMAR.S2_MA_1A CT scan
made by scanner 2 containing metal implants and reconstructed using the
standard algorithm.S2_MA_2_MDTA CT scan made by scanner 2 containing metal
implants and reconstructed using the MDT.S2_MA_2_sMARA CT scan made by
scanner 2 containing metal implants and reconstructed using sMAR.S2_MA_2A
CT scan made by scanner 2 containing metal implants and reconstructed
using the standard algorithm.S2_MA_3_MDTA CT scan made by scanner 2
containing metal implants and reconstructed using the MDT.S2_MA_3_sMARA CT
scan made by scanner 2 containing metal implants and reconstructed using
sMAR.S2_MA_3A CT scan made by scanner 2 containing metal implants and
reconstructed using the standard algorithm.S2_Ref_3A CT scan made by
scanner 2 containing no metal implants.S2_MiscMiscellaneous data from
scanner 2 (e.g. topogram, dose report)S2_Ref_1A CT scan made by scanner 2
containing no metal implants.S2_Ref_2A CT scan made by scanner 2
containing no metal implants.S3_MA_1_DE120keVA CT scan made by scanner 3
containing metal implants using a dual energy acquisition and
reconstructed at 120 keV.S3_MA_1_DE150keVA CT scan made by scanner 3
containing metal implants using a dual energy acquisition and
reconstructed at 150 keV.S3_MA_1_MARIS0A CT scan made by scanner 3
containing metal implants and reconstructed using MARIS0.S3_MA_1_MARIS1A
CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants and reconstructed
using MARIS1.S3_MA_1_MARIS2A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal
implants and reconstructed using MARIS2.S3_MA_1_MARIS3A CT scan made by
scanner 3 containing metal implants and reconstructed using
MARIS3.S3_MA_1_MARIS4A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants
and reconstructed using MARIS4.S3_MA_1_MDTA CT scan made by scanner 3
containing metal implants and reconstructed using the MDT.S3_MA_1A CT scan
made by scanner 3 containing metal implants and reconstructed using the
standard algorithm.S3_MA_2_DE120keVA CT scan made by scanner 3 containing
metal implants using a dual energy acquisition and reconstructed at 120
keV.S3_MA_2_DE150keVA CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants
using a dual energy acquisition and reconstructed at 150
keV.S3_MA_2_MARIS0A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants
and reconstructed using MARIS0.S3_MA_2_MARIS1A CT scan made by scanner 3
containing metal implants and reconstructed using MARIS1.S3_MA_2_MARIS2A
CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants and reconstructed
using MARIS2.S3_MA_2_MARIS3A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal
implants and reconstructed using MARIS3.S3_MA_2_MARIS4A CT scan made by
scanner 3 containing metal implants and reconstructed using
MARIS4.S3_MA_2_MDTA CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants
and reconstructed using the MDT.S3_MA_2A CT scan made by scanner 3
containing metal implants and reconstructed using the standard
algorithm.S3_MA_3_MARIS2A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal
implants and reconstructed using MARIS2.S3_MA_3_MARIS1A CT scan made by
scanner 3 containing metal implants and reconstructed using
MARIS1.S3_MA_3_DE120keVA CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal
implants using a dual energy acquisition and reconstructed at 120
keV.S3_MA_3_MARIS0A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants
and reconstructed using MARIS0.S3_MA_3_MARIS3A CT scan made by scanner 3
containing metal implants and reconstructed using MARIS3.S3_MA_3_MARIS4A
CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants and reconstructed
using MARIS4.S3_MA_3A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing metal implants
and reconstructed using the standard algorithm.S3_MA_3_MDTA CT scan made
by scanner 3 containing metal implants and reconstructed using the
MDT.S3_MiscMiscellaneous data from scanner 1 (e.g. topogram, dose
report)S3_Ref_1A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing no metal
implants.S3_Ref_2A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing no metal
implants.S3_Ref_3A CT scan made by scanner 3 containing no metal implants.