Journal of the Korean Physical Society

Korean Physical Society (한국물리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Scatter Correction Using a Primary Modulator for Dual Energy Digital Radiography: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study

  • Jo, Byung-Du (Department of Radiological Science, College of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Young-Jin (Department of Radiological Science, College of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Dae-Hong (Department of Radiological Science, College of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Joung (Department of Radiological Science, College of Health Science, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2014.01.14
  • Accepted : 2014.06.30
  • Published : 2014.08.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In conventional digital radiography (DR) using a dual energy subtraction technique, a significant fraction of the detected photons are scattered within the body, making up the scatter component. Scattered radiation can significantly deteriorate image quality in diagnostic X-ray imaging systems. Various methods of scatter correction, including both measurement- and non-measurement-based methods, have been proposed in the past. Both methods can reduce scatter artifacts in images. However, non-measurement-based methods require a homogeneous object and have insufficient scatter component correction. Therefore, we employed a measurement-based method to correct for the scatter component of inhomogeneous objects from dual energy DR (DEDR) images. We performed a simulation study using a Monte Carlo simulation with a primary modulator, which is a measurement-based method for the DEDR system. The primary modulator, which has a checkerboard pattern, was used to modulate the primary radiation. Cylindrical phantoms of variable size were used to quantify the imaging performance. For scatter estimates, we used discrete Fourier transform filtering, e.g., a Gaussian low-high pass filter with a cut-off frequency. The primary modulation method was evaluated using a cylindrical phantom in the DEDR system. The scatter components were accurately removed using a primary modulator. When the results acquired with scatter correction and without scatter correction were compared, the average contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) with the correction was 1.35 times higher than that obtained without the correction, and the average root mean square error (RMSE) with the correction was 38.00% better than that without the correction. In the subtraction study, the average CNR with the correction was 2.04 (aluminum subtraction) and 1.38 (polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) subtraction) times higher than that obtained without the correction. The analysis demonstrated the accuracy of the scatter correction and the improvement of image quality that could be obtained by using a primary modulator and showed the feasibility of introducing the primary modulation technique into dual energy subtraction. Therefore, we suggest that the scatter correction method with a primary modulator will be useful for use with the DEDR system.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)

References

  1. R. E. Alvarez and A. Macovski, Phys. Med. Biol. 21, 733 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/21/5/002
  2. C. E. Floyd, P. T. Beatty and C. Ravin, Invest. Radiol. 24, 30 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198901000-00008
  3. J. M. Boone and J. A. Seibert, Med. Phys. 15, 721 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.596186
  4. J. H. Siewerdsen, D. J. Moseley, B. Bakhtiar, S. Richard and D. A. Jaffray, Med. Phys. 31, 3506 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1819789
  5. H. Lee, L. Xing, R. Lee and B. P. Fahimian, Med. Phys. 39, 2386 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3691901
  6. J. A. Sorenson and J. Floch, Med. Phys. 12, 308 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595690
  7. L. Zhu, N. R. Bennett and R. Fahrig, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 25, 1573 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2006.884636
  8. H. Gao , R. Fahrig, N. R. Bennett, M. Sun, J. S. Lack and L. Zhu, Med. Phys. 37, 934 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3298014
  9. R. Grimmer, R . Fahrig, W. Hinshaw, H. Gao and M. Kachelriess, Med. Phys. 39, 825 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3676180
  10. H. Kashani, C. A. Varon, N. S. Paul, G. J. Gang, R. V. Metter, J. Yorkston and J. H. Siewerdsen, Academic Radiology 17, 298 (2009).
  11. A. B. Hashemi, E. Blanz, J. Maltz, D. Hristov and M. Svatos, Med. Phys. 32, 2093 (2005).
  12. W. R. Brody, G. Butt, A. Hall and A. Macovski, Med. Phys. 8, 353 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.594957
  13. L. A. Lehmann, R. E. Alvarez, A. Macovski, W. R. Brody, N. J. Pelc, S. J. Riederer and A. L. Hall, Med. Phys. 8, 659 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595025
  14. F. C. Wagner, A. Macovski and D. C. Nishimura, Med. Phys. 15, 732 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.596188
  15. M. Baer and M. KachelrieB, Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 6849 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/21/6849
  16. H. Gao, L. Zhu and R. Fahrig, Med. Phys. 37, 4029 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3457472
  17. T. Xu, J. L. Ducote, J. T. Wong and S. Molloi, Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 1191 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/4/019

Cited by

  1. Comparison Study of Image Performance with Contrast Agent Contents for Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging vol.21, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4283/jmag.2016.21.2.281
  2. Mineral Characterization in Human Body: A Dual Energy Approach vol.11, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11040345