Feasibility of Dual-Energy Cone-Beam CT of Bone Marrow Edema Using Dual-Layer Flat Panel Detectors
Stephen Z Liu1, Chumin Zhao1, Magdalena Herbst2
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205.
Purpose:
We investigated the feasibility of detection and quantification of bone marrow edema (BME) using dual-energy (DE) Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) with a dual-layer flat panel detector (FPD) and three-material decomposition.
Methods:
A realistic CBCT system simulator was applied to study the impact of detector quantization, scatter, and spectral calibration errors on the accuracy of fat-water-bone decompositions of dual-layer projections. The CBCT system featured 975 mm source-axis distance, 1,362 mm source-detector distance and a 430 × 430 mm2 dual-layer FPD (top layer: 0.20 mm CsI:Tl, bottom layer: 0.55 mm CsI:Tl; a 1 mm Cu filter between the layers to improve spectral separation). Tube settings were 120 kV (+2 mm Al, +0.2 mm Cu) and 10 mAs per exposure. The digital phantom consisted of a 160 mm water cylinder with inserts containing mixtures of water (volume fraction ranging 0.18 to 0.46) - fat (0.5 to 0.7) - Ca (0.04 to 0.12); decreasing fractions of fat indicated increasing degrees of BME. A two-stage three-material DE decomposition was applied to DE CBCT projections: first, projection-domain decomposition (PDD) into fat-aluminum basis, followed by CBCT reconstruction of intermediate base images, followed by image-domain change of basis into fat, water and bone. Sensitivity to scatter was evaluated by i) adjusting source collimation (12 to 400 mm width) and ii) subtracting various fractions of the true scatter from the projections at 400 mm collimation. The impact of spectral calibration was studied by shifting the effective beam energy (± 2 keV) when creating the PDD lookup table. We further simulated a realistic BME imaging framework, where the scatter was estimated using a fast Monte Carlo (MC) simulation from a preliminary decomposition of the object; the object was a realistic wrist phantom with an 0.85 mL BME stimulus in the radius.
Results:
The decomposition is sensitive to scatter: approx. <20 mm collimation width or <10% error of scatter correction in a full field-of-view setting is needed to resolve BME. A mismatch in PDD decomposition calibration of ± 1 keV results in ~25% error in fat fraction estimates. In the wrist phantom study with MC scatter corrections, we were able to achieve ~0.79 mL true positive and ~0.06 mL false positive BME detection (compared to 0.85 mL true BME volume).
Conclusions:
Detection of BME using DE CBCT with dual-layer FPD is feasible, but requires scatter mitigation, accurate scatter estimation, and robust spectral calibration.
