Influence of field of view size on image quality: ultra-high-resolution CT vs. conventional high-resolution CT

Abstract

Objectives This study was conducted in order to compare the effect of field of view (FOV) size on image quality between ultrahigh-resolution CT (U-HRCT) and conventional high-resolution CT (HRCT). Methods Eleven cadaveric lungs were scanned with U-HRCT and conventional HRCT and reconstructed with five FOVs (40, 80, 160, 240, and 320 mm). Three radiologists evaluated and scored the images. Three image evaluations were performed, comparing the image quality with the five FOVs with respect to the 160-mm FOV. The first evaluation was performed on conventional HRCT images, and the second evaluation on U-HRCT images. Images were scored on normal structure, abnormal findings, and overall image quality. The third evaluation was a comparison of the images obtained with conventional HRCT and U-HRCT, with scoring performed on overall image quality. Quantitative evaluation of noise was performed by setting ROIs. Results In conventional HRCT, image quality was improved when the FOV was reduced to 160 mm. In U-HRCT, image quality, except for noise, improved when the FOV was reduced to 80 mm. In the third evaluation, overall image quality was improved in U-HRCT over conventional HRCT at all FOVs. Noise of U-HRCT increased with respect to conventional HRCT when the FOV was reduced from 160 to 40 mm. However, at 240-and 320-mm FOVs, the noise of U-HRCT and conventional HRCT showed no differences. Conclusions In conventional HRCT, image quality did not improve when the FOV was reduced below 160 mm. However, in U-HRCT, image quality improved even when the FOV was reduced to 80 mm. Key Points • Reducing the size of the field of view to 160 mm improves diagnostic imaging quality in high-resolution CT.• In ultra-high-resolution CT, improvements in image quality can be obtained by reducing the size of the field of view to 80 mm.• Ultra-high-resolution CT produces images of higher quality compared with conventional HRCT irrespective of the size of the field of view.

X-ray Imaging for Gastrointestinal Tracking of Microscale Oral Drug Delivery Devices

“…Instead, the fieldof-view could have been narrowed down from looking at the entire body of the rats to only the abdominal area. This would allow for an increased magnification and higher scan resolution [50] and hence, a more significant signal from the GI tract. If the GI tract was to be seen in the current 3D visualizations, relevant orthogonal views could be made.…”

Dual-source dual-energy thin-section CT combined with small field of view technique for small lymph node in thyroid cancer: a retrospective diagnostic study

“…Most lymph nodes were located in level VI in our study, and small lymph nodes account for the majority of them. For small FOV CT images, the signal-to-noise ratio and spatial resolution have improved (8,(13)(14)(15)(16). ROI was often drawn in the enhancement area in previous studies, and this area did not necessarily represent the entire lymph node.…”

The impact of the field of view (FOV) on image quality in MDCT angiography of the lower extremities

“…The improvement of spatial resolution in MDCT using a smaller, adjusted FOV, or an increased matrix is well established in other parts of the body [7][8][9][10]18]. Whereas most of these applications focus on high contrast structures such as the scaphoid or temporal bone, small joints, or the lungs, there is a prominent example for the use of a small FOV for vessels examinations in MDCT: cardiac CT [19,20].…”

“…In other parts of the body, it is well established that the adjustment of the reconstructed field-of-view (FOV) has a decisive impact on image quality as the full spatial resolution of the scanner cannot be utilized with a standard large "full-body" FOV. Alternatively, the reconstruction matrix size can be increased [7][8][9][10]. However, this is not possible in most standard clinical MDCT scanners.…”