Tomonobu Haba

Abstract Purpose The energy threshold is an important parameter for precise material identification employing photon‐counting techniques. However, in such applications, the appropriate energy threshold has not been clarified. Therefore, we aimed to determine the appropriate energy threshold range for precise material identification, focusing on effective atomic number (Z) values as an index. Methods The atomic number was estimated using a previously proposed algorithm and Monte Carlo simulations. This algorithm included three steps: calculating the attenuation factor from the incident photon counts on a photon‐counting detector, correcting the beam‐hardening effects, and estimating the atomic number from the attenuation factor index using the calibration curve. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to add Poisson noise to an ideal x‐ray spectrum. The total number of incident x‐rays was set in the range of 10³–10⁶. The x‐ray spectra were generated at tube voltages of 50–120 kV. Polymethyl methacrylate (Z = 6.5) and aluminum (Z = 13) were used for the analysis. The energy threshold was varied at intervals of 1 keV to estimate the atomic number. We evaluated the appropriate energy threshold range for accurately estimating the atomic number using the obtained atomic number data and statistical uncertainty under various conditions. Results The appropriate energy threshold range was found to be 31–38 keV for a tube voltage range of 50–120 kV. At this energy threshold, the atomic number can be estimated within an accuracy of ± 0.7 at 10⁵ counts for the atomic number range of 6.5 (PMMA) to 13 (Al). Conclusions We found the appropriate energy threshold range. The findings of this study are expected to be useful for appropriately setting the energy threshold during precise material identification using photon‐counting detectors for clinical applications.

Size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) was proposed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 204 to consider the effect of patient size in the x-ray CT dose estimation. Size correction factors to calculate SSDE were derived based on the conventional weighted CT dose index (CTDIw) equation. This study aims to investigate the influence of Bakalyar's and the authors' own CTDIw equations on the size correction factors described by the AAPM Task Group 204, using Monte Carlo simulations. The simulations were performed by modeling four types of x-ray CT scanner designs, to compute the dose values in water for cylindrical phantoms with 8-40 cm diameters. CTDI100 method and the AAPM Task Group 111's proposed method were employed as the CT dosimetry models. Size correction factors were obtained for the computed dose values of various phantom diameters for the conventional, Bakalyar's, and the authors' weighting factors. Maximum difference between the size correction factors for the Bakalyar's weighting factor and those of the AAPM Task Group 204 was 27% for a phantom diameter of 11.2 cm. On the other hand, the size correction factors calculated for the authors' weighting factor were in good agreement with those from the AAPM Task Group 204 report with a maximum difference of 17%. The results indicate that the SSDE values obtained with the authors' weighting factor can be evaluated by using the size correction factors reported by the AAPM Task Group 204, which is currently accepted as a standard.

X-ray image evaluation is commonly performed by determining the detective quantum efficiency (DQE). DQE is calculated with a presampled modulation transfer function (MTF), incident photon fluence, and digital noise power spectrum (NPS). Accurate evaluation of MTF, incident photon fluence, and NPS is important for precise DQE determination. In this study, we focused on the accuracy of the incident photon fluence in mammography. The incident photon fluence is calculated using the squared signal-to-noise ratio (SNRin2) value as specified in the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62220-1-2 report. However, the reported SNRin2 values were determined using a computer program, and the reported values may differ from those calculated from an X-ray spectrum that is measured with actual mammography equipment. Therefore, we evaluated the error range of reported SNRin2 values in mammography to assess the accuracy of the incident photon fluence. First, X-ray spectra from various mammography systems were measured with a CdTe spectrometer. Six mammographic X-ray units were used in this study. Second, the SNRin2 values were calculated from the measured X-ray spectra. The calculated values were compared to the reported values. The results show that the percentage differences between the calculated and reported SNRin2 values were within - 4.1% of each other. The results obtained in this study indicate that the SNRin2 values provided in the IEC report are a robust and convenient tool for calculating the incident photon fluence for DQE evaluation in mammography.