P. 1
4 SLICE COMPARATIV

4 SLICE COMPARATIV

|Views: 293|Likes:
Publicado porIrinel Busca

More info:

Published by: Irinel Busca on Mar 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/07/2012

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • Introduction
  • Purpose of this report
  • Comparison methods
  • Specification comparison
  • Scanners covered in this report
  • Scanner performance
  • Introduction
  • Dose efficiency
  • Head scanning
  • Body scanning
  • Spatial resolution
  • Limiting resolution
  • Geometric efficiency
  • Geometric Efficiency
  • Clinical scan tables
  • Inner ear
  • High resolution spine
  • Patient couch
  • X-ray generator
  • X-Ray tube
  • Detection system
  • System start-up and detector calibration
  • Scan parameters
  • Helical scanning
  • Scan projection radiograph (SPR)
  • Manufacturer’s performance data
  • Factors affecting image quality
  • Operator’s console
  • Main computer
  • Image storage
  • Image reconstruction
  • 3D reconstruction
  • Optional features
  • Installation requirements
  • Independent workstation
  • Image transfer and connectivity
  • Appendix 1: Image quality assessment and Q
  • Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments
  • Responses are included from the following manufacturers :
  • Response from GE Medical Systems
  • Response from Philips Medical Systems
  • Response from Siemens Medical Solutions
  • ImPACT Response to Siemens Comments
  • Response from Toshiba Medical Systems
  • ImPACT response to Toshiba’s comments
  • Appendix 3: ImPACT and the MDA
  • Background
  • ImPACT
  • ImPACT and MDA support to purchasers and users

February 2003

Evaluation Report

NUMBER

MDA 03020

Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison Report Version 8

ImPACT report

MDA Evaluation Report

MDA 03020

© Crown Copyright

£100 (Free to the NHS)

WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT FROM MDA EVALUATION REPORTS The Device Evaluation Service (DES) aims to provide independent and objective evaluations of medical devices available on the UK market. Specialist centres, mainly in NHS Trusts, do the evaluations under long-term contract to, and in accordance with protocols approved by, the MDA. The evaluations are usually of a unit supplied by the manufacturer. We would expect this unit to be representative of the product on the market but cannot guarantee this. Prospective purchasers should satisfy themselves with respect to any modifications that might be made to the product type after MDA’s evaluation. The reports are intended to supplement, not replace, information already available to prospective purchasers.

© Crown Copyright 2003
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism, or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act, 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means with the prior permission, in writing, of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO). Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to HMSO at the undermentioned address: The Copyright Unit, The Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2 - 16 Colegate, NORWICH, NR3 1BQ

ImPACT – Imaging Performance Assessment of CT Scanners

Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison Report
Version 8, February 2003

A report comparing the specification and imaging performance of the following CT scanners:

Manufacturer GE GE Philips Siemens Toshiba Toshiba

Scanner model LightSpeed QX/i Advantage LightSpeed Plus Advantage Mx8000 Somatom Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Aquilion Multi

Compiled and prepared by members of the ImPACT group

www.impactscan.org © 2003, Crown Copyright

Table of contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................3
Purpose of this report............................................................................................................ 3 Comparison methods ............................................................................................................ 3 Scanner performance............................................................................................................... 3 Specification comparison ......................................................................................................... 3 Scanners covered in this report............................................................................................ 4

SCANNER PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................5
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 Dose efficiency....................................................................................................................... 6 Head scanning ......................................................................................................................... 6 Body scanning.......................................................................................................................... 6 Spatial resolution ................................................................................................................... 7 Limiting resolution .................................................................................................................... 7 Geometric efficiency .............................................................................................................. 8 Clinical scan tables ................................................................................................................ 9 Standard brain.......................................................................................................................... 9 Standard abdomen................................................................................................................... 9 Helical abdomen ...................................................................................................................... 9 Inner ear..................................................................................................................................10 High resolution spine...............................................................................................................10

SPECIFICATION COMPARISON ..............................................................................11
Scanner gantry ......................................................................................................................11 Patient couch.........................................................................................................................12 X-ray generator......................................................................................................................13 X-Ray tube .............................................................................................................................13 Detection system...................................................................................................................14 System start-up and detector calibration ............................................................................14 Scan parameters ...................................................................................................................15 Helical scanning ....................................................................................................................16 Scan projection radiograph (SPR) .......................................................................................17 Manufacturer’s performance data........................................................................................18 Factors affecting image quality............................................................................................19 Operator’s console................................................................................................................20 Main computer.......................................................................................................................21 Image storage........................................................................................................................22 Image reconstruction............................................................................................................23 3D reconstruction..................................................................................................................24 Optional features...................................................................................................................25 Installation requirements......................................................................................................26 Independent workstation ......................................................................................................27 Image transfer and connectivity ..........................................................................................28

APPENDIX 1: IMAGE QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND Q .........................................29 APPENDIX 2: MANUFACTURERS' COMMENTS ....................................................30
Responses are included from the following manufacturers :............................................30 Response from GE Medical Systems ..................................................................................31 Response from Philips Medical Systems ............................................................................32 Response from Siemens Medical Solutions .......................................................................33 ImPACT Response to Siemens Comments .........................................................................36 Response from Toshiba Medical Systems ..........................................................................37 ImPACT response to Toshiba’s comments.........................................................................39

APPENDIX 3: IMPACT AND THE MDA ....................................................................40
Background ...........................................................................................................................40 ImPACT ..................................................................................................................................40 ImPACT and MDA support to purchasers and users .........................................................40

2

ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8

02060 (dual). workstation and related equipment. of all non-helical CT scanners in use in England. different measurement techniques and phantoms often make it very difficult to compare results from one scanner against another. There are two main areas for comparison of the scanners. and allow a fair. separate scanner purchases. The ImPACT performance assessments utilise standard techniques. Scanner performance This section presents the results of ImPACT’s imaging and dose performance assessment of each of the scanners. tube and detectors etc. like-with-like comparison. such as gantry. It is grouped into a series of sub-sections relating to different aspects of the scanner. The previous set of ‘Blue Cover’ comparison reports generally available was from Phase 7 of the government purchase. 02061 (four slice) and 02059 (eight and sixteen slice)). Version 8 of report was produced to reflect changes in scanners since that date. The scope of this report is limited to CT scanners that are capable of acquiring four sets of attenuation data per tube rotation. Specification comparison The specification comparison is presented as a side-by-side summary comparison of the specification of each scanner. and are liable to change. Although manufacturers generally publish image and dose characteristics of their scanners. The primary aim of these reports was to aid the equipment selection process by providing comparisons of CT scanners that are currently on the market. as the performance of individual scanner models is changed and upgraded. and in anticipation of the availability of further funds for CT scanner purchase within the NHS.Introduction Purpose of this report In January 2000. performance and specification. dual. over a three-year period. In particular. optional features such as workstations and software packages may be listed as standard for the scanner replacement programme. but may not be included in other. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 3 . six to ten and sixteen slice scanners. in August 2002 (report numbers MDA 02058 (single slice). ImPACT produced comparison reports for the seven phases of the purchase program. the UK government announced the funding for the replacement. Comparison methods The data given in this report are representative of the scanners as of February 2003. Separate reports are available for single.

these are indicated in the tables.Introduction Scanners covered in this report At the time of writing. and a limit of 350 mA tube current. The Philips Mx8000 was formerly marketed as the Marconi Mx8000. Siemens AG and Toshiba Medical Systems. with the exception of the availability of 0. the current Asteion has a lower specification tube and generator. Of these. The original design of the Asteion Multi has a poorer dosimetric performance than the Aquilion Multi for equivalent image quality. Manufacturer GE GE Philips Siemens Toshiba Toshiba Scanner model LightSpeed QX/i Advantage LightSpeed Plus Advantage Mx8000 Somatom Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Aquilion Multi The GE LightSpeed QX/i Advantage and LightSpeed Plus Advantage models are grouped together in the specification section of this report. as the majority of their specifications are the same. Philips. (in alphabetical order) GE Medical Systems. This includes a new x-ray tube and a tracking collimator. The LightSpeed QX/i is a replacement for the LightSpeed scanner. In particular. and a slower scan speed. Shimadzu. such as the LightSpeed Plus’ faster scan speeds. The scanner models in this report are listed in the table below. There are also differences in reconstruction times. there are five manufacturers of medical CT scanners.5 second scan times. GE. The specifications of the Toshiba Asteion Multi and Aquilion Multi scanners are listed separately as there is considerable difference between the two. 4 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . couch height. This is in part due to wider dose profiles. Toshiba undertook development work to improve the dose efficiency of the Asteion Multi. Where there are exceptions to this. At the time of publication only one Asteion Multi in the UK is known to have received the retrospective upgrade and an assessment of its dosimetric performance has been undertaken by ImPACT. with the main change being the x-ray beam filtration. The performance of the LightSpeed QX/i is expected to follow that of the LightSpeed Plus. The Siemens Somatom Sensation 4 is an update to the previously available Somatom Volume Zoom. weight and size of room required. Siemens and Toshiba currently produce four slice scanners. Philips Medical Systems. Philips acquired Marconi Medical in October 2001. The date of start of production of the modified Asteion Multi models is not yet known.

This is presented as the MTF50 and MTF10 values (known as MTF50 and MTF10) for the limiting clinical resolution of the scanner. the ImPACT evaluation programme has developed a range of assessment techniques. where geometric efficiencies are normally lowest. Spatial resolution compares the ability of the scanners to reproduce fine detail within an image. These were described in detail in MDA/98/25. In general. The results of this testing are presented in this section. Geometric efficiency examines the z-axis dose utilisation of the scanners. particularly for narrow slice thicknesses. Type Testing of CT Scanners: Methods and Methodology for Assessing Imaging Performance and Dosimetry. The dose efficiency section looks at the overall image quality of the scanner relative to the radiation dose delivered to the patient. usually referred to as the high contrast spatial resolution. for both head and body scanning. scanners with a high geometric efficiency will not produce large patient doses.Scanner performance Introduction In order to compare the performance of CT scanners. This is presented in terms of the ImPACT Q value. This is expressed as the ratio of the imaged slice thickness to the x-ray beam thickness. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 5 . Clinical scan tables lists the measured image quality and dose parameters for the standard ImPACT clinical scans. which consists of data regarding different aspects of scanner performance.

5 Q2 6.4 3. In the two tables below the scanners are ranked according to their Q2 value.6 3. ImPACT normally use the 'Q-value'.8 214 9.40 0.6 1.8 241 4.6 6.Scanner performance Dose efficiency Dose efficiency is a term used to describe the quality of a scanner's images relative to the radiation dose to the patient. Slice thickness: 4 x 5 mm for head.5 3. The mAs setting that would result in a CTDIw of 50 mGy for head and 15 mGy for body scanning is listed.5 MTF10 (c/cm) 6.40 MTF50 (c/cm) 3.2 2.5 5.4 3. slice thicknesses.8 Noise (%) 0. scan times and reconstruction algorithm.5 or 2 s for head.6 6.6 6.0 Scanner GE LightSpeed Plus Philips Mx8000 Siemens Sensation 4 Toshiba Aquilion Mean 6 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .7 Noise (%) 1.1 5. which combines measurements of noise.6 180 9.6 130 9. slice thickness and dose to produce an imaging figure of merit (see Appendix 2). Scan time: 1.9 6. image noise at 50 or 15 mGy and MTF values are also shown. 1s or faster for body.2 3.6 3.1 6. Reconstruction algorithm: the algorithm chosen for each scanner is the one that most closely matches the average ‘standard’ head and body algorithm (MTF50 of 3.3 1.2 1.7 2.1 Q2 2.5 5.0 6.9 356 4. Reconstruction field of view: 250 mm (head) and 380 mm (body).4 MTF50 (c/cm) 3.7 5. high contrast resolution. It can be expressed in a number of ways.0 c/cm).1 1.8 Scanner GE LightSpeed Plus Philips Mx8000 Toshiba Aquilion Siemens Sensation 4 Mean Body scanning Recon filter Soft B B30 FC11 mAs for z-sens 15mGy (mm) 182 9.5 1. 2 x 10 mm for body.5 MTF10 (c/cm) 6.37 0.8 3.6 3.41 0. Z-sensitivity.8 285 4.7 195 9. The Q2 values presented in this section are for head and body imaging.4 c/cm.8 265 4. The imaging parameters used for these scans are chosen to minimise slight variations that occur for different kV. Head scanning Recon filter Stnd B FC27 H40 mAs for z-sens 50mGy (mm) 278 4. by using standard values where possible: kV: 120 kV or 130 kV when this is the ‘standard’ operating kV for the scanner.3 5.2 6.8 1.41 0. MTF10 of 6.

Scanner performance Spatial resolution The spatial resolution figures given below show the capabilities of the scanners to reproduce fine detail within an image. Limiting resolution Recon Filter U90u E FC90 EDGE MTF50 (c/cm) 15. long (>1 s) scan time.0 13.2 17.7 8.e.8 14. small reconstruction field of view. Limiting resolution looks at the highest spatial resolution that can be achieved with the scanner.4 9. Scanners are ranked according to MTF10 value.6 Scanner Siemens Sensation 4 Philips Mx8000 Toshiba Aquilion GE LightSpeed Plus The scan parameters used for the limiting resolution table are those that produce the highest spatial resolution i.9 10. fine focal spot. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 7 . sharpest reconstruction algorithm. using a clinical reconstruction algorithm.5 MTF10 (c/cm) 21.

especially for narrow beam collimations where post-patient collimation may be necessary to bring the imaged slice thickness closer to the nominal value.6 4.9 0.5 4 x 0.7 5.1 0. Slice zDose Total zGeometric Scanner thickness sensitivity profile sensitivity efficiency (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Siemens Sensation 4 4x1 1.5 mm settings.2 mm) and dose profiles (± 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nominal Imaged Width (mm) Siemens Sensation 4 Toshiba Aquilion 8 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . For optimum imaging.5 Philips Mx8000 0.Scanner performance Geometric efficiency Geometric efficiency is a measure of the scanners dose utilisation in the z-axis.2 0.70 Toshiba Aquilion 4x1 1.5 0. and the Marconi Mx8000 and Toshiba Aquilion for 0.94 0.0 1.6 2.9 2.0 0. Geometric efficiency values of greater than 1 can occur within the accuracy limits of the measurements.3 0.73 Philips Mx8000 4x1 1.2 1. Error bars on the graph reflect the accuracy of measurements of the section thickness (± 0.4 0.25 1.2 2.1 7.6 1.625 2 x 0. showing how geometric efficiency varies with nominal imaged slice width.2 0. The graph presents data for all slice widths.64 GE LightSpeed Plus Siemens Volume Zoom Philips Mx8000 Toshiba Aquilion 2 x 0.5 0. This is expressed as the ratio of the axial imaged slice section thickness relative to the z-axis dose profile.0 5.0 0.6 0.2 mm). the geometric efficiency should be 1.7 0.5 2 x 0.7 4.9 0.0 0.45 0. The total z-sensitivity figure is the sum of individual imaged widths except for the Siemens Volume Zoom for 1 and 0. The table gives geometric efficiency values for the setting closest to 4 x 1 mm slice thickness and also for the slices narrower than 1 mm. but it is often less.6 0.8 4.6 0. Scanners are ranked according to geometric efficiency.69 GE LightSpeed Plus 4 x 1.2 6.1 4.45 1.5 mm. The data is presented in the form of a table and a graph.0 5.46 0.8 1.6 GE LightSpeed Plus 0.8 Geometric Efficiency 0.

5 0. may vary widely from one centre to another.5 6.9 5.8 2.7 4x5 380 B 18 4. Note that in these tables.9 Philips Mx8000 120 250 0. It should be noted that the exposure parameters listed were those suggested by the manufacturer.9 3. Recon CTDIW z-sens. Scanner GE LightSpeed Plus Philips Mx8000 Siemens Sensation 4 Toshiba Aquilion MEAN kVp mAs 120 120 120 120 Scan time (s) 80 0.4 6.5 3.1 2 x 10 380 FC10 17 9.5 5 0.3 * The LightSpeed QX/i Advantage would use 0.4 2.0 MEAN 46 7. In particular.8 6. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) Filter (mGy) (mm) GE LightSpeed Plus* 120 160 6 Stnd 10 6. Scan Slice FOV Recon CTDIW z-sens.0 3.7 3. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) time (s) (mm) (mm) Filter (mGy) (mm) GE LightSpeed Plus 120 240 2 2 x 10 250 Soft 43 9.8 6.9 *The UI-B filter on the Mx8000 has changed since the ImPACT assessment Scanner kVp mAs Standard abdomen Axial abdomen scan.5 Slice FOV Recon CTDIW z-sens.32 3.8 Siemens Sensation 4 120 260 1 2x8 250 H40 43 7. Standard brain Head scan reconstructed to show low contrast brain detail.5 5 0.Scanner performance Clinical scan tables These are a sub-set of the standard ImPACT clinical scan tables for a range of examination types.5 3.1 MEAN 17 6.1 3.7 15 8.0 Toshiba Aquilion 120 300 1 2 x 10 240 FC27 62 9.8 1. the settings for mA and scan time.4 1.6 6.22 3.75 6.75 4x5 250 UI-B* 35 4.2 2 x 10 380 B30 17 9.7 3.6 6.7 3. the scanners are listed alphabetically by manufacturer.9 1.4 3.5 7 Pitch ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 9 . but in practice they will vary from site to site.4 Helical abdomen Helical abdomen scan.6 0. Listed alphabetically.4 6.2 2.6 2.8 0. which define patient dose.7 6.8 0.5 220 0. Listed alphabetically.29 3.9 6.0 6.9 0.7 1.8 s scan time.26 3.6 6.5 150 0.37 2.5 s scan setting Scanner kVp mAs Scan Slice time (s) (mm) 0. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) (mm) (mm) Filter (mGy) (mm) 2 x10 380 Stnd 7 9.6 1.2 Toshiba Aquilion 120 150 3 FC10 22 7.5 0.8 250 0.5 Philips Mx8000 120 250 5 B 14 6. Listed alphabetically.1 5. as it does not have a 0.5 Siemens Sensation 4 120 207 5 B30 14 5.2 5.1 6.6 1.4 4.

8 4x2 120 FC30 38 1.5 120 U90 42 0.9 11.5 120 Bone+ 38 2.9 11 7. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) (mm) (mm) Filter (mGy) (mm) 2x2.4 11.5 1 1.3 9.2 4 x 2.4 10. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (mm) (mm) Filter (mGy) (mm) (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) 2x 0.1 59 0. Scanner GE LightSpeed Plus Philips Mx8000 Siemens Sensation 4 Toshiba Aquilion MEAN kVp mAs 140 120 120 120 120 330 100 150 Scan time (s) 0.2 11 7.1 10 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . Listed alphabetically.0 10.2 12.4 16.7 2 x 0.7 11.5 Slice FOV Recon CTDIW z-sens.0 8.4 13 9.5 18.5 120 B60 30 2.H.8 17.63 120 Bone+ 45 0.5 4 x 0.4 12.0 4.5 Slice FOV Recon CTDIW z-sens.5 120 FC81 73 0.8 4 x 2.9 6.5 180 D 41 2./E 62 1.5 High resolution spine High contrast spine examination.4 13 7.6 9.9 12.4 37 2. Scanner GE LightSpeed Plus Philips Mx8000 Siemens Sensation 4 Toshiba Aquilion MEAN kVp mAs 120 140 120 120 320 350 360 300 Scan time (s) 2 1. Listed alphabetically.7 18.Scanner performance Inner ear High contrast inner ear exam.4 9 6.5 15.7 4x1 120 U.3 11.8 2 1 0.6 33. using a narrow slice for good resolution in the z-axis.

Specification comparison Scanner gantry GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Generation Slipring Aperture (cm) Scan fields of view (cm) Nominal slice widths for axial scans (mm) Tilt range (degrees) Type of positioning lights Accuracy of positioning lights (mm) 3rd Low voltage 70 25 and 50 0. 1. 2. 1. 2. 0. 1.75. 1. 2. 10. 8. 10 ± 30 Laser Info. not available ± 30 Laser Info. 3. 8.25. 8.5. 5. 10 ± 30 Laser ±2 mm 3rd Low voltage 72 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 3rd Low voltage 72 18. 10 ± 30 Laser ± 1mm at any laser to patient distance Philips Mx8000 Quad 3rd Low voltage 70 25 and 50 0. 8. 5. 3.5.5. 4. 24. 16 ± 30 Laser ± 0. not available ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 11 . 7.5mm at centre of gantry Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 3rd Low voltage 70 50 0. 50 50 0. 1. 32. 18.5. 40. 32. 4.5.5. 2.5. 2. 40.625. 10 5. 3.5. 24. 5.5. 1. 5.

100.99 51 48 .99 88 .5 182 10 or 100 ± 0.87 30 30 .150 ± 0.102 86 -102 48 30 .100 ± 0.25mm) 205 (±1mm) 200 200 200 200 500 205 500 205 12 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .87 73 .25 GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Carbon fibre 239 x 62 (42 just for cradle) Philips Mx8000 Quad Carbon fibre 243 x 67.25 200 0.Specification comparison Patient couch Couch top Material Length and width (cm) Horizontal movement Horizontal movement range (cm) Horizontal movement speeds (mm/sec) Accuracy/reproducibility of table positioning (mm) Scannable horizontal range (cm): (i) without table top extension 160 (helical). 170 (axial & scout) [160] 160 (helical).5 . 170 (axial & scout) [160] 165 157 144 144 170 [160] up to 100 ± 0.95 73 .25 182 10 or 100 ± 0.8 86 .25 200 1 .95 30 205 180 (±0.100.8 48 48 .5 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Carbon fibre 243 x 40 Carbon fibre 200 x 47 Toshiba Aquilion Multi Carbon fibre 200 x 47 (ii) with table top extension(s) Vertical movement Vertical movement range out of gantry (cm) Vertical movement range in gantry (cm) Minimum couch top height outside gantry (cm) Weight bearing properties Maximum weight allowed on couch (kg) Maximum weight on couch which still achieves stated performance specifications (kg) 187 165 155 155 51 .

100.500 (10mA steps) (10mA steps) Max. 90.5) 864 Oil/forced air with liquid metal bearings 200. 2 mm > 1 (inherent) > 1 (inherent) PTFE + + 1.6 Toshiba Aquilion Multi Toshiba Megacool 0.7 x 1. 135 135 10 .5 2 mm PTFE + 0.3 (run at 80% full loading) 730 4.400 10 . 80.500 (5mA steps) (1mA steps) [10-350 / 440] 80.3 840 6. 100. body) 0. 100. 120.5 + 1.9 4.7 0.500 (1mA steps) High frequency Rotation assembly 48 Toshiba Aquilion Multi High frequency Rotation assembly 60 80.6 x 1. head) 5.0 (nominal. mA allowed for each kV 80kV: 400mA [350 / 400] 100kV: 420mA 90kV: 500mA 80 kV: 375mA 80 -120 kV: 80 -120 kV: [350 / 420] 120kV: 500mA 120kV: 500mA 400mA 500mA 120kV: 440mA 140kV: 425mA 140kV: 428mA 135kV: 350mA 135kV: 440mA [350 / 440] 140kV: 380mA [300 / 380] X-Ray tube GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Type and make Focal spot size(s) (mm).5 735 Oil to air One year (unlimited rotations) Oil to air Oil to air 160.2 > 5. 120.7 0. 140 28 .5 x 0.Specification comparison X-ray generator GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Type Location Power rating (kW) kV settings available mA range and step size High frequency Rotation assembly 53.2mmTi (body) 5.2 optional] Philips Mx8000 Quad High frequency Rotation assembly 60 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi High frequency Rotation assembly 60 80.000 rotations ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 13 .9 x 1. 53.6 x 0.3 1.65 (70kV.8 x 1.7 0.8 1.2 [42.8 x 1. 120. claimed equiv.9 x 0.5 1.440 28 .386 Anode heat capacity (MHU) Maximum anode cooling rate (kHU/min) Method of cooling 6. to 6.000 seconds of scanning Oil/forced air Guaranteed tube life 200.5 1.5 x 0.000 rotations 200.9 x 0.6mmTi (head).75 (70kV. quoted to IEC 336/93 standard Total filtration (inherent + beam shaping filter) at central axis (mm Al equivalent) Philips Mx8000 Quad Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Siemens Dura Akron-B 0.4 GE Performix Marconi DFS 0. 120.000 rotations 7.2 Toshiba Helicool 0. 120. 140 140 10 .

2 x 1. 32/64 slices WIP 20 10 or 16 slices System start-up and detector calibration GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Power-on to warm-up time (mins) Tube warm-up time from 'cold' to operating temperature (mins) Time to perform detector calibrations at warm-up (mins) Recommended frequency for any additional calibration by the radiographer Time to perform these additional calibrations (mins) Total time from fully off to scanning in an emergency (mins) 2 from fully off. 0 from standby 2 (0 in an emergency) 1 1 / 3 weeks 2 8-9 Not required Not required 8 (11 with warm up) 1 per week Up to 20 1 per week Up to 20 2 2 14 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . 2 x 2. 2 x 1.25 20 8 slices 16 slices Philips Mx8000 Quad Solid state (High speed ceramic) 672 (plus 2 reference elements) 8 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Solid state (Ultra Fast Ceramic) 672 (1344 channels per row) 8 Solid state 896 (plus 1 pair ref detectors) 34 4 x 0. 0 from standby 2 (0 in an emergency) 1 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 2 from fully off. 6 from standby 3 2 2 from fully off.5 30 x 1 32 8 slices March 2002.5. 2 from standby 2-3 3 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 12 from fully off.5.5. 2 x 5 2 x 2. 2 x 5 20 16 slices now. approx.Specification comparison Detection system GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Detector type Solid state (HiLight / Lumex) 888 (plus 18 reference elements) 16 16 x 1. 2 x 1.5.5 30 x 1 32 8 slices March 2002. 0 from standby 45 secs Included in 45s tube warm-up Once every 24 hours 13 (inc warmup) <3 Philips Mx8000 Quad 6 from fully off. 16 slices March 2003 Number of detectors per row Number of elements along z-axis Effective length of each element at isocentre (mm) Total effective length of detector array at isocentre (mm) Future option for more slices/rotation 2 x 1. 16 slices March 2003 Toshiba Aquilion Multi Solid state 896 (plus 1 pair ref detectors) 34 4 x 0.

4 x 5. 1.75. 0. 1.5.5. 0. 2. 2 x 0. 100.7 .1 . 140 140 10 .75. 2 x 0.5. 1. 0. 0. 120.500 (10mA steps) (10mA steps) (10mA steps) Max. 0. 1 x 1. 4 x 2.5. 1. 4 x 5.36*.625. 3 3. 4 x 2. 0.3*. 2 x 10 4 x 8. 0. 4 x 5. 2. 100.54*.50 0 . mA allowed for each kV 80kV: 400mA [350 / 400] 100kV: 420mA 90kV: 500mA 80 kV: 375mA 80 -120 kV: 80 -120 kV: [350 / 420] 120kV: 500mA 120kV: 500mA 400mA 500mA 120kV: 440mA 140kV: 425mA 140kV: 428mA 135kV: 350mA 135kV: 440mA [350 / 440] 140kV: 380mA [300 / 380] ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 15 .75. 4 x 1. 1. 80.500 (5mA steps) (1mA steps) [10-350 / 440] 80. 4 0.25. 120. 2 x 8.5. 4 x 5 0. 135 135 Scan times for axial scans (s) * = Partial scans kV settings available mA range and step size 28 .5. 1.7.8.Specification comparison Scan parameters GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Reconstruction fields of view (cm) Number of simultaneous slices at each nominal axial slice width (mm) 9.50 (0.5. 90.440 28 .5 3 [0.5.25. 4] 80. 0. 2 1. 4 x 4. 4 x 4.5. 2 x 10 4 x 3. 120.50 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 0 . 2 x 10 4 x 8. 4 x 2. 0. 4 x 3.6 to 50 Philips Mx8000 Quad 2. 4 x 5.50 2 x 0. 0. 4 x 2.6. 100.5. 0. 4 x 1. 4 x 1. 4 x 0.9.75. 140 80.75.400 10 .2.5. 0. 4 x 1.500 10 . 4 x 3. 4 x 2. 0.3*. 2 x 10 2 x 8.5.5. 2. 3.5. 1. 120. 0. 1. 4 x 1.5*.1 steps) Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 5 . 120. 4 x 0.5 . 0.0.

2.5 4 1 to 8 (0. MDMP and Crossbeam) 70sec (300mA) 90sec (270mA) 110sec (250mA) 120 1600 mm [1285 mm] ± 30 180º.75 3. 600 mm 1200 mm ± 30 ± 30 16 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .75. 5. .5.75.5s) 100 Maximum continuous scan time (s) Starting with a cold tube.5. 1. 3.5. 6 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 0. 1.75s) (180mA. 1] 4 2 slice : 1 4-slice : 0.5. 5.5. 0. 6 Recommended pitches for optimal image quality 2 slice : 1 1. 1 [0.75s) (300mA.1 steps) Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 0. 3. 4. 0. 1s) (160mA. 1. 1. 3. 4.5. Muscot 180º.5. 4. 3. 8 and 1.25 . 1.7.5.5.9. 0. not available W.5s) 100 133 200 (150mA. 6 Helical interpolation algorithms available SureView (Adaptive Axial Interpolator) 180º.7.I.5. 100 Info. the maximum helical scan distance using a 1 mm imaged slice thickness and a pitch of 1. 360º.5. 3. not available W.5s) 66 (100mA.P.Specification comparison Helical scanning GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Rotation times for helical scanning (s) Number of simultaneous slices at each rotation time Pitches available for routine scanning (range and increment) 0. 2.75. 0. 0.2) (freely selectable) 1 to 8 0. 1. 360º.75s) (190mA. 1.5.P.8.I.75. .5 4 2.5 GE Proprietary algorithms (SmartHelical. 360º. 3. .5. 6 2. High order non linear filters 2. .5.5 Gantry tilt range for helical scanning (degrees) 100 100 Info. 5.5. . 5.5.5. 1. 1. 5.5 4 2.6.5. 0. 5.5. .5 4 1 to 8 (0.5.5 Philips Mx8000 Quad 0. 3.5s) 133 115 120 (200mA.75 and 1. 3. 5. 4-slice : 0. 5.5. 0. 4. 5.5. Muscot Maximum number of rotations in one helical run at standard abdomen parameters 200 200 (300mA. 1.5.

359° (1° steps) Philips Mx8000 Quad 1000 width: 500 length: 100 -1000 (1mm steps) 0. length: 200 . LAT (oblique in 10º steps) Yes 1390 width: 240.25 < 2 x image pixel size <±1 ± 0.Specification comparison Scan projection radiograph (SPR) GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Maximum SPR length (mm) SPR field dimensions (mm x mm) 1600 500x1600 any angle from 0 .25 ± 0. 180. 400. release acquisition ± 0.5 mm < ± 0. 180.5 mm ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 17 .5 ± 0. length: 200 . 90. 90. 270 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 1024 512 x 1024 AP.w. 500.25 ± 0. 180.390 0. 270 (oblique in 5º steps) Yes Angular positions of X-ray tube available for SPR (degrees) Real time image Accuracy of slice prescription from the scanogram (mm) Accuracy of distance measurements from SPR's taken at isocentre (lateral and axial directions) (mm) Image viewed immediately Available next after s.1.25 ± 0. 400.390 0. 500.1. 270 (oblique in 5º steps) Yes Toshiba Aquilion Multi 1390 width: 240. PA. 90.5 < ± 0.

2 (s) 2: 5.0 lp/cm 2.63:1. 200mA. (10cm DFOV.9 120 kV 4.5 11.5 lp/cm (200mA.8 (l) 16: 18.2 (s) CT number accuracy Dose CTDI100 (mGy/100 mAs) for axial standard brain scans at given parameters: . FOV. 20 mm 5. small focus) Philips Mx8000 Quad Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Toshiba Aquilion Multi Spatial resolution (lp/cm) for sharpest clinical algorithm Contrast reolution: smallest rod size (mm) discernable at given parameters in 20 cm CATPHAN Spiral: 5mm @ 0. 120kV. small focus) 2% MTF : 14. U95u.25: 3.2 8.3 330 mA.8 20 120 kV. not available 120 kVp.9 13.8 (l) 10: 11. 260 mAs. 1s.periphery of CTDI phantom Info.5 (s) 5: 6.75 sec.1 120 kV. 20 mm 21. E-filter) Small Focus) 4.8 (l) 4: 5.7 (s) 120kV.0 18.3 (l) 16:16.3%: @ 17mGy: 120kV. 20 mm 16.9 (s) 4: 7.1 (s) 2: 5. 0. 2 x 10 mm 5. 2x10 FC41 FC41 mm Air: -1000 ± 10 HU.2 (s) 120kV.3 20: 21. 300mA.6 14. 50mm FOV.Specification comparison Manufacturer’s performance data GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Image Quality 0% MTF: 1% MTF: 15. 0. 0.0 mm @ 0. 1s. 10mm. 0.5 lp/cm (200mA.5 (l) 20: 22. 300mA. 13.centre of CTDI phantom . 100mAs.75 sec. 10 mm slice 10mm.9 (l) 20: 23. 150mAs. 20 mm 4. 0. 200mA.0 (l) 12: 15.3 (s) Dose profile FWHM (mm) (focal spot size in brackets) 18 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .4 20: 21. water: 0 ± 4HU 120kV. 2 x 10 mm 18.75s.5s.3 20: 20.7 (l) 12: 15. 25 cm scan Edge alg.2 (l) 16: 19.7 (s) 1: 2. 260 mAs.75s.7 (s) 1.3%: 5mm @ 0. 1s. 27 alg mGy at center of phantom Water : 0 ± 3 HU ± 4 Hu 0% MTF: 30lp/cm 0. 150mAs. 20 mm 6.3% @ 13.6 20 120 kV.5 (s) 10: 11.4 (s) 8: 10.2 25.centre of CTDI phantom .1 32: 35.5 (s) 2x0.3 120 kVp. body. 400mA.3% 5mm @ 0.4 lp/cm 24 lp/cm 10% MTF : (0. 150 mAs .periphery of CTDI phantom CTDI100 (mGy/100mAs) for axial standard abdomen scans .2 13. 0.6 (s) 8: 10.75s. 20 mm 17. not available Info.7 (s) 4: 7. Std EB filter.6(l) 15: 16.5 (l) 1:2.15 (l) 4: 5.5 (l) 16: 17.5 mm slice.75 s scan. small focus 2% MTF : 14. mGy: 120kVp.std 10mm. DFOV.7 32: 35. 1s.9(s) 120kV 13. 440 mA.0 8.3% 5mm @ 120 kVp. 25cm 25 cm DFOV. 120kV.4 (l) 10: 11.

Suppression Protocol (RASP).5s scan). Raster Art. (abdomen.5s) Beam hardening correction.Specification comparison Factors affecting image quality GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Dose Post-patient collimation for narrow slices Automatic mA adjustment according to body dimensions or density during examination Noise Adaptive filtration for noise reduction Resolution Quarter detector shift Moving (dynamic/flying) focal spot Number of imaging detectors per row Yes No 880 Yes Yes 672 2. 1200 views/sec (>0. Stack scanning. Iterative bone shoulder). Stack scanning.320 views (in standard imaging mode) Yes Yes 672 (1344 channels) 1160 views/rot (0. Automatic patient motion correction Artefact reduction algorithms Cone beam correction GE Proprietary algorithms No correction No correction (SmartHelical & MDMP Algorithm) MUSCOT MUSCOT ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 19 . Motion pelvis.5s). Suppression Protocol (RASP). Automatic patient motion correction Philips Mx8000 Quad Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Toshiba Aquilion Multi No SmartmA Yes Doseright Yes CARE Dose No Yes No Yes Low signal correction Adaptive image enhancement or Yes (user Yes (user smoothing for Yes (automatic) programmable) programmable) three density ranges Sampling frequency 1640 Hz 1200 views/sec Artefacts Modified beam Iterative Bone hardening Option (IBO). correction Motion Recon of thick correction slices from (sequential thinner ones modes) Beam hardening correction. Raster Art.5s scans) Yes No 896 Yes No 896 1800 views/sec (0. correction. 2320 views/ rot (> 0.

film technique acquisition/ review and review and selection / and post review. cursor. 1024 x 1024 -1024 to +8191 512 x 512.Specification comparison Operator’s console GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Image monitor Diagonal dimension of image screen (inches) 20 18 (LCD) 18. keyboard Mouse. keyboard 20 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .25 mm depends on pixel size Info. 768 x 768. 512 x 1024. 1024 x 1024 -1024 to +3071 < 2 times image pixel size 512 x 512. 2 (acquisition/ 2 (acquisition/ up and review. cursor. keyboard Mouse.1 21 21 Philips Mx8000 Quad Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Toshiba Aquilion Multi Number of monitors at console (functions of each if > 1) 2 (patient info 2 (patient set and 1 (acquisition. 512 x 1024. not available Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mouse. recon processing) processing) processing) image and filming) display) 512 x 512.240 to +30. trackball. keyboard Mouse. 1024 x 1024 -1024 to +8191 Image display Image area matrix dimensions 1024 x 1024 1024 x 1024 -1024 to +3071 (-10. not available Info. keyboard Mouse.710 if metal implants) Usual range of CT number displayed (HU) -1000 to +3094 Accuracy of distance measurements in x-y plane (mm) Dose information Weighted CTDI (CTDIW ) or CTDIvol displayed on console Dose Length Product (DLP) displayed on console Geometric efficiency displayed on console when <70% Hardware interface Control methods ± 0.

Specification comparison Main computer GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Make and model HP XW8000 Philips Mx8000 Quad Dell Xeon Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Siemens PC compatible with array processors Windows NT 2 x Silicon Graphics O2 IRIX Toshiba Aquilion Multi 2 x Silicon Graphics O2 IRIX Operating system Linux RedHat Windows NT 7.7 GHz) (display console) 300 MHz R5000 (scan console) + R12000 (display console) 300 MHz Amount of computer RAM (Mbytes): (i) supplied as standard (ii) maximum 2048 12 GB 4096 4096 1024 1024 2 x 1024 2 x 1024 2 x 1024 2 x 1024 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 21 .3 Type and speed of CPU 2 x 2.66 GHz 2 GHz R5000 (scan console) + Pentium IV R12000 (min 1.

000 images 4. of images) 4.6 (9400 losslessly compressed 512x512 images or 700 raw data files) 4.000 images) 18 (2000 data files) Philips Mx8000 Quad 63 63 27 (33.slightly images .1 (15.000 rotations Capacity of a single archive disk (Gbytes and no.000 data files) 45 90 16.slightly 0.6 (9600 2.000 images) 4 (2.Specification comparison Image storage Hard disk storage Total standard hard disk capacity (Gbytes) Maximum hard disk capacity (Gbytes) Hard disk capacity for image storage (Gbytes and no. of uncompressed 512x512 images) Hard disk capacity for storage of raw data files (Gbytes and no.000 Rewritable MOD (standard) Rewritable MOD (standard) GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] 36 36 18 (20.000 rotations Toshiba Aquilion Multi 45 90 16. of data files) Archive options Archive options MOD (standard) MOD. CD writer (standard) MOD: 4.1 (26.65 (4800 compressed) compressed) compressed images) 256 x 256 matrix Time to mount an archive disk or tape (s) Archive data transfer rate (images/s) 5-6 in background operation 1 (read) 0. 1 Approx.000 data files) Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 108 108 36 (60.7 (write) Immediate (disk continually accessible) Less than 1s per image Approx.6 (9600 compressed 512 x 512 512 x 512 images) CD-R: images .000 images) 72 (70.650 losslessly compressed 512 x 512 images) losslessly 2. 1 22 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . CD writer (standard) MOD. 30 for 20 for full disk 20 for full disk full disk 2-3 Approx.000 images 4.

30 prospective. 512 (768. 50 retro. 35 prospective.1 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 256 x 256.1 Philips Mx8000 Quad 340. 45 retro. 512 x 512 0.1 256 x 256. 65 retro. 512 x 512 0.1 (ii) axial spine scan 23 60 (iii) helical abdomen scan Parallel processing details Simultaneous scanning and reconstruction Any delay in either scanning or reconstruction when performed concurrently Simultaneous scanning and routine analysis Simultaneous scanning and archiving and/or hard copying Simultaneous scanning and transfer to second console/workstation 25.Specification comparison Image reconstruction GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Reconstruction matrix Minimum reconstruction interval in helical scanning (mm) Reconstruction times Time (s) from the start of data acquisition to the appearance of the 30th image of a series: (i) standard axial brain scan 56.1 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 256 x 256. 60 retro. 45 prospective.9 (with IBO) [TBC] 26 [TBC] 23 60 50 prospective. 1024 optional) 0. 25 prospective. 512 x 512 0. 40 retro. 50 retro. 35 prospective.2 [TBC] 19 48 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 23 . 512 x 512 0.

sagittal. any oblique (identical on console and workstations) Axial. curvilinear All planes. sagittal. sagittal. curvilinear Axial. MC-optional WS-standard MC-Option MC-optional. coronal. MC-standard. curved oblique. oblique. paraaxial. MC-standard. WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard (MPR & (MPR) MPVR) Axial. MC-standard. MC-standard. coronal. standard WS-standard MC-Standard MC-standard. oblique. MC-standard. SSD (3D Shaded Surface Display) WS-standard WS-standard WS-Standard WS-standard WS-standard (3D) (3D SSD) 3D volume rendering software MC-N/A WS. WS-standard MC-standard. MC-standard. MC-standard. curved with cross cut with cross cut through the through the curved reformat curved reformat 3D virtual endoscopy MPR (Multi-planar reconstruction) Planes available in MPR 24 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .Specification comparison 3D reconstruction 3D reconstruction on main console (MC) and workstation (WS) MIPs and MinIPs (maximum and minimum intensity projections) GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Philips Mx8000 Quad Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Toshiba Aquilion Multi MC-standard MC-standard. oblique. (Vol Rend 4D WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard (Volume Rendering) Angio) MC-optional.MC-standard. MC-standard. MC-optional. Axial. coronal. coronal. MC-standard. sagittal. WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard (MIP & MinIP) (Angio MIP) MC-optional MC-standard. WS-standard (V-endo WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard (Navigator) Voyager) MC-standard MC-standard.

WS-optional (Osteo CT) MC-optional. MC-standard. WS-N/A MC-optional.Specification comparison Optional features GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Contrast injector Contrast media bolus tracking CT fluoroscopy software and hardware Hard-copy imaging device Radiotherapy planning accessories Radiotherapy planning table top Carbon fibre breast board Optional (RT flat pad and 'Exact' couch top) Optional Optional (Exact table top) Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional N/A Optional Optional N/A Optional Optional Philips Mx8000 Quad Optional Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Optional Optional Standard Toshiba Aquilion Multi Optional Standard Standard Standard Standard (SmartPrep) (BolusPro Ultra) (CARE Bolus) Optional (SmartStep) Optional Optional (Continuous CT Imaging) Optional Optional (CARE Vision) Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Means for attaching patient immobilisation devices and a Optional stereotactic frame to the end of the (Exact couch) couch Software Packages on main console (MC) and workstation (WS) Bone mineral densitometry MC-N/A WS-optional (BMD) MC-optional. MC-optional. WS-N/A MC-optional. MC-optional. WS-N/A Info. not available ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 25 . WS-N/A MC-optional. MC-standard. Prospective ECG-triggered cardiac WS-N/A WS-optional WS-N/A software (Prospective (SmartScore) (Heart View) Gating) MC-optional (Cardiac MC-optional. MC-standard. WS-optional MC-optional. MC-standard. optional (Heart View) Tagging) (Cardiac Imaging) Dental Perfusion software MC and WS. WS-N/A MC-optional.optional) MC-optional. WS-N/A CT angiography MC-standard WS-standard. WS-optional) perfusion) WS . WS-N/A MC-optional.Perfusion CT CT Perfusion optional (head (MC (MC-optional and body optional. WS-optional MC-optional. WS-optional MC-optional. AVA (Vessel WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard Assessment) (Angio MIP) option on WS MC-optional WS-optional (Dentascan) MC-optional. WS-optional WS-optional (DENT -3) (Dental CT) MC and WSMC-N/A Radiotherapy CT simulation Available from optional WS-optional software 3rd party (AcQsim or (CT sim) SmartSim) MC-optional. not available Info. Snapshot) . Retrospective ECG-gated cardiac WS-Option MC & WSWS-N/A software (Retro. WS-optional (Q BMAP II) MC-optional. MC-optional MC-optional.

75kVA Power supply requirements 26 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . 15-30° C. humidity 40-80% 18-28 ºC. humidity) in scanner control room Peak heat output from system during scanning (kW) System cooling method Air conditioning requirements for scanner room of minimum floor area Minimum floor area required for 2 the system (m ) Dimensions of: (i) Gantry (H x W x D (mm)) and weight (kg) 1887 x 2230 x 1007 1269kg [1415 kg] 1120 x 610 x 2387 340kg [334 kg] 2050 x 2290 x 980 2100kg 1990 x 2220 x 890 2100kg 15-26 ºC. 15-75% 40-60% humidity 7.7 max Output to air Not necessary but recommended 15-26 ºC. humidity 40-80% 18-28 ºC. humidity) in cond. Recommended other than for patient comfort 28 25 20 25 (36 recommended) 1950 x 2320 x 960 1750kg 390 x 620 x 2390 330kg Transformer: 980 x 800 x 770. rel.5 Water/water 13. 66-83kVA 3 phase 380-440V. 200kg 750. rel.1 (75 rot/patient. 15-28 ºC. rel. 15-28 ºC. 550kg 408kg [336 1800 x 900 x 1815 x 905 x kg] 860. humidity 40-80% 10. Cooling Unit: Cooling Unit: 770. 15-75% 40-60% scanner room humidity Environmental requirements (max/min temperature. 500kg 3 phase 380480V. rel. 90kVA 3 phase 380-480V. 60% nonair humidity humidity cond. 3015-30° C.6 max Output to air Not necessary but recommended Toshiba Aquilion Multi 18-28 ºC. rel. 100kVA 1760 x 1970 x 870 1300kg (ii) Couch (H x W x L (mm)) and weight (kg) (iii) Supplementary units (H(mm)xW(mm)xD(mm)) and weight (kg) 390 x 850 x 480 x 620 x 680 x 670 x 2390 2430 2550 330kg 500kg 500kg Power Unit: Power Unit: Power Unit: 1800 x 900 x 1815 x 905 x Transformer: 1270 x 762 x 800. 550kg 980 x 800 x 585. 90kVA 3 phase 380-480V. 550kg 3 phase 380-440V. Environmental requirements 30-60% nonair humidity humidity (max/min temperature. rel. humidity 40-80% 11. 550kg 750.Specification comparison Installation requirements GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Philips Mx8000 Quad Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 18-28 ºC.5 Water/water None 25 Not required. 4 patient/hour) Output to air 13.

1 4. images) Philips Mx8000 Quad Standard: MX VIEW Silicon Graphics O2 Unix RISC processor 300 MHz Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi Standard: LEONARDO Siemens Fujitsu Pentium 4 Windows NT Pentium (at least 1.1 (26. noncond.7 GHz) Standard: AlatoView Silicon Graphics O2 Unix R12000.Specification comparison Independent workstation GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Is a workstation provided? Computer make and model Operating system Type and speed of CPU Amount of computer RAM (Mbytes): (i) supplied as standard (ii) maximum Total hard disk storage capacity (Gbytes): (i) supplied as standard (ii) maximum Archive options 163 163 MOD (standard) 18 18 CD-RW (option) MOD (Option) Minimum 36 Currently 36 CD-R (Standard).6 (9400 (15.slightly compressed) compressed) 2. humidity 40-80% ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 27 .000 losslessly comp.2 GHz 2048 4096 1024 1024 1024 3072 1024 1024 1024 1024 27 27 MOD (optional) 27 27 MOD (optional) Capacity of a single archive disk (Gbytes) MOD: 4. humidity) for workstation 0-40 °C 15-30 ºC 20-85% rel.3 2 x 2.65 (4800 comp. MOD (optional) MOD: 4. 300 MHz Standard HP X4000 Linux Red Hat 7.6 (9600 512 x 512 512 x 512 images . 2080 % rel. 300 MHz Toshiba Aquilion Multi Standard: AlatoView Silicon Graphics O2 Unix R12000. humidity at 40 ºC CD-R: 0.650 losslessly losslessly compressed compressed 512x512 images or 700 512 x 512 images) raw data files) 10-40 ºC. humidity 18-28 ºC.6 (9600 Environmental requirements (max/min temperature. images) 256 x 256 matrix 2.slightly images . humidity 40-80% 18-28 ºC.

Print. Modality Retrieve. and SCP. Modality Worklist (opt. Modality worklist worklist worklist Performed worklist (optional) (optional) procedure step (opt) Storage SCU Storage SCU Storage SCU and SCP. print. (standard). Print Query/ Storage SCP Query/Retrieve.). Storage SCU and Print and Print Storage SCU Media service and SCP.Specification comparison Image transfer and connectivity GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Speed of scanner/workstation connections to local area networks (Mbits/s) Remote PC access to images on workstation 100 Optional Philips Mx8000 Quad 100 Optional (Easy Web) Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 100 Optional 100 Optional Toshiba Aquilion Multi 100 Optional DICOM service classes provided by CT console (SCP and SCU) DICOM service classes provided by independent workstation (SCP and SCU) Storage SCU and SCP. Query/Retrieve Query/Retrieve SCU. and SCP. Print. Query/Retrieve Query/Retrieve and Print and Print media interchange 28 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . class. Storage SCU Storage SCU Query/Retrieve. and SCP.). Storage SCP (std. Print. and Modality and Modality Print. Storage SCU Storage SCU and SCP. Query/Retrieve and SCP. (standard).

6mm diameter tungsten disc for helical scanning CTDIw = weighted CT dose index. X-ray dose can be regarded as a 'cost' of this information. It is not an absolute figure. expressed as a percentage for a 5cm2 region of interest at the centre of the field of view in the standard ImPACT water phantoms.1mm thickness. which was modified from the previous value used by ImPACT. noise. spatial resolution and slice width into one number. it can take a number of forms depending on how the various parameters are measured and quoted. with a conservative estimate of ±10%. as defined in EUR 16262 The Q-factor is in part empirical and it should be used with caution. The Q-value used in this comparison report. In general. Comparisons between scanners will be more reliable when comparing scans reconstructed with similar convolution filters. The Q-value incorporates dose. 3 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 29 . in that a dose efficient scanner will produce good resolution at minimum dose and noise. A dose efficiency factor has a fundamental meaning. is the same one used in Comparison Report 12 (MDA/00/11).Appendix 1: Image quality assessment and Q Statistical noise. given as (MTF50%+ MTF10%)/ 2 Where MTF50% and MTF10% are the spatial frequencies corresponding to the 50% and 10% modulation transfer function values respectively (in line pairs per cm). The uncertainty in this value is up to about +/-15%. fav = spatial resolution. Q2. This is measured using the inclined plates method for axial imaging. However. it is meaningless to quote any one of these measurements without reference to the others. or its image quality. Q2 is defined as follows: f av Q2 = 2 σ z1CTDI w where: σ = image noise. z1 = the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the imaged slice profile (z-sensitivity). spatial resolution and slice sensitivity are fundamental parameters describing the amount of object information retrievable from an image. It is of most importance when considering the standard scans for head or body. as its derivation relies on assumptions of the shape of convolution filter used. This figure is derived from a relationship between image quality and dose received. Q1. and using a 0.

30 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Responses are included from the following manufacturers : GE Medical Systems Philips Medical Systems Siemens Medical Solutions Toshiba Medical Systems Where appropriate ImPACT have included a short reply.

Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Response from GE Medical Systems 2nd May 2001 ImPACT 4-Slice CT Comparison Reports Dear Sue Thank you. these show the quality. Therefore. are very close. Would this be possible in future reports? Kind regards Yours sincerely Paul Morgan CT Clinical Scientist ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 31 . it would be useful to have an indication of the degree of error in the measurements. We were. in a clinical setting. which can be achieved. to see whether the small differences are significant. as these showed both the Lightspeed and the Lightspeed Plus to have the best overall image quality with due regard to dose. I would like to state that all of the protocols which we suggested for the clinical scan tables. for the draft version of the report. are protocols which we recommend as being suitable for clinical purposes. One final comment Where values in the tables. of course pleased with the results of the comparisons.

Thank you and all the ImPACT team for all your work on producing a thorough Blue Cover Report for the CT scanner comparison and assessment.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Response from Philips Medical Systems The following response was received in relation to the Marconi Mx8000 scanner before Philips’ purchase of Marconi Medical Systems in October 2001. On behalf of Marconi Medical Systems we have no additional comments to make and look forward to receiving a hardback copy and working with you all in the future. Best Regards Derek Tarrant CT Product Manager Marconi Medical Systems UK 28/05/01 32 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . Dear Sue.

Thank you for your invitation to respond to the ImPACT Comparison report. Since this places the Volume Zoom in a ranking amongst different manufacturers in a poor position.0 2.0 2. however. This feature is not reflected at all in the corresponding Q-value.5% for a water phantom. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 33 . Manufacturer's Response Dear Sue. our own Physicists have commented on several possibilities to increase the Q-value by alternative choices of protocol parameters. dose and noise level at the centre of rotation. the SOMATOM VolumeZoom uses an optimized prefiltration which enhances gray/white matter contrast.8 1. In the following. it could be possible for some clincal teams to take this factor and regard it as a categorical statement regarding dose efficiency. Impact Value Standard brain: Standard Abdomen Helical Abdomen *) New Value 7.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Response from Siemens Medical Solutions 10/05/01 ImPACT Comparison Reports. We note that you do point out the limitations of the ‘Q’ factor in the appendices. but the clinical advantage would be lost.2. which reduces a complex issue of image quality to a single number combining spatial resolution. By not utilizing this optimized prefiltration the Q-value could be increased by 8.3 Rank 1 3 *) 1 5. the difference is not significant. The results are summarised in the following table.7 1. we believe that the performance of this system in delivering outstanding clinical images is not properly reflected in this ranking. Standard Brain 1) Pre-Filtration For head imaging. as quoted in the ImPACT report. Given a 15% uncertainty. further supporting information is detailed below this. Tremendous efforts have been made by all involved to deal with this. we would like to acknowledge the work and effort that you and your team have put into these reports.9 The number 1 in this category has a Q-value of 2. there is one aspect we would wish to highlight in some reasonable detail and I hope that you agree that this is appropriate. Firstly. I am referring to the ‘Q’ factor. Whilst you do not wish for a detailed response from us.

This is advantageous both for body imaging and for head imaging. if heads are not exactly centered.8 -> 7. Conclusion Using the modifications discussed above. the Q-factor for standard abdomen imaging on the Volume Zoom can be increased by 17% in total (1. which is also available. 3) Convolution Kernel Convolution kernels used for head imaging on the VolumeZoom are designed to optimize the visual appearance of the image. the VolumeZoom uses a dedicated image filter for head imaging. the noise texture and the delineation of anatomical structures. changing the ranking such that the Volume Zoom is on position 1 in the list. 34 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .0).Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments 2) Bowtie-Filter The bowtie filter was recently redesigned for the VolumeZoom to achieve a more homogeneous appearance of the image towards the edge of the 50cm measurement field. Therefore the benefits of the ORA-filter are not reflected in the Q-value. For the majority of applications. B30 is the clinically preferred kernel. It is not effective for a simple water phantom like the one used for the determination of the Q-value. Using the previous design of the bowtie filter leads to an 8% higher Q-value for body-modes and a 3% higher Q-value for head modes.0). Therefore. the Qvalue would be increased by 8%. Furthermore. g. Standard Abdomen 1) Bowtie-filter See Standard Brain. the Q-factor for brain imaging on the Volume Zoom can be increased by 21% in total (5.7 -> 2. leaving the Volume Zoom on position 3 in the list. the Q-factor could be increased by 8% using the previous design of the bowtie filter. Using B35. at the cost of inferior image homogeneity and loss of image quality. because the head scan field of view is not restricted to 250mm as with many competitors. when both soft tissue and bony structures are present. Conclusion Using the modifications discussed above. the standard head protocols on the VolumeZoom use a rather sharp kernel (H40). e. This filter reduces the image noise without degrading image sharpness. the use of different convolution kernels can increase Q. 2) Convolution kernel As discussed above. at the cost of inferior image homogeneity. the Q-factor can be increased by 8%. Using a smoother kernel (H20) similar to the other manufacturers.

2) Convolution kernel See Standard Abdomen.5mm collimation is the default setting for standard abdominal protocols. one can also use the kernel B70s. Using B35.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Helical Abdomen 1) Bowtie-filter See Standard Abdomen. Yours sincerely David Forrest Product Manager CT ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 35 . as chosen by other manufacturers. which is considerably sharper. Conclusion Using the modifications discussed above. the Q-factor for helical abdomen imaging on the Volume Zoom can be increased by 22. ability to additionally reconstruct thin slices.9 -> 2. the Q-factor can be increased by 8%. despite the above. we are pleased to have been able to assist in this process and keen to maintain the outstanding levels of co operation and support between our orgainsations ! We look forward to continuing to work with you in the future. changing the ranking such that the Volume Zoom is on position 1 in the list. However the benefits mentioned above would be lost. High Resolution Spine The kernel B60s reflects the feedback from the majority of users of the Volume Zoom.3). 3) Slice collimation Narrow beam collimation in multislice CT has several advantages: elimination of partial volume artifacts. improved definition of slice sensitivity profiles. The Q-factor could be increased by 8% using the previous design of the bowtie filter. For this reason the 4*2. the geometric efficiency can be improved. which is also available. With a wider beam collimation of 4*5mm.5% in total (1. a higher resolution is desired. May I say that in conclusion. If. at the cost of inferior image homogeneity. Inner Ear Volume Zoom is on rank 1 in the ImPACT report. however. resulting in a 5% increase of the Q-factor.

To address the problem of dependence of Q. 36 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . page 3). 1) With respect to choice of convolution kernel (H20 vs H40. whereas the uniform water phantom used for the noise measurements will give a noise value that reflects a smoother filter. using a wider collimation for the Siemens scanner would not alter its position in the table. The combination of these two figures in the Q equation results in a higher Q than would be obtained without the ORA-filter. in that the comparisons of Q should be made for a standard collimation. B30. 3) We are in agreement with the point made relating to slice collimation (Siemens letter. 2) The use of the ORA image filter used in head imaging is reflected in the Q-value. However. In practice. for example Siemens have mentioned image uniformity. or may not. whilst we accept that Q does not reflect all aspects of image quality. We consider that to be the most appropriate approach for clinical scan comparisons. We will address the three main aspects below. it is not appropriate to use a hypothetical Q-value in a comparison. However. in the clinical scan comparisons our approach is to use the kernel recommended by the manufacturer. B35 vs.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments ImPACT Response to Siemens Comments Siemens have made a number of comments relating to how the Q-value could be increased if certain design features on their scanner were changed in respect to filtration. and kernels with similar MTF values. B70 vs. the ‘Dose Efficiency’ section of the report compares Q-values with similar acquisition parameters. altering these may. there is obviously a range of acquisition parameters that could be used. have a bearing on Q. The phantom for determining the MTF value used in the Q equation will reflect the higher resolution obtained for sharp edges. B60).

the combination of these factors has only a partial relation with Dose Efficiency for Low Contrast Detectability and Image Quality. This means that the Q2 factor is for the largest proportion defined by the CTDIw and the noise values. being one of the most important of Multislice CT scanners. Therefore putting the 10 & 50 % MTF value in a formula in order to establish a figure that must have a relation with low contrast resolution is incorrect. Due to the difference in reconstruction algorithms and X-ray spectra optimisation of the different manufacturers. In Toshiba's case the optimal low contrast resolution is specified as 2. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 37 . the noise patterns differs and therefore the noise figure is not decisive for the low contrast detectability of the individual systems. 2001 Below you will find Toshiba’s manufacturers comment on ImPACT’s Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison Report. however the 10 and 50 % frequencies of the MTF curve states something about the spatial resolution (high contrast resolution) of the applied filter.5 HU difference. Summary The assessment is primarily based on an evaluation protocol for single slice Helical CT scanners. Version 3. This implies that the report does not evaluate the image quality in the Z-direction. The advantage of volumetric scanning over single slice scanning is the easy realization of isotropic volumes whereby the resolution in all directions is identical.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Response from Toshiba Medical Systems Subject MS Comparison report Dear Sue Our reference JB/2001/25 Date May 6.5 mm @ 2.90 % MTF. A resolution of 2. A large proportion of this Q2 value is determined by the spatial resolution of the reconstruction filter at 10 and 50 % of the MTF curve. Next to this an objective assessment of the Low Contrast detectability is missing. The low contrast resolution is described by the shape of the MTF curve at very low frequencies. Although the individual parameters used in this formula have a certain relation with image quality. The ImPACT measurement shows that the average of 10 & 50 % MTF of all convolution filters have approximately the same value. Therefore we must emphasise that the Q2 value does not represent the dose efficiency in relation to the image quality in which the low contrast resolution is of the greatest importance.02.5 mm can be converted to a spatial frequency of 2 LP/cm that can be detected between 80 . Please add this letter or its content to your official Blue Cover Version of this report. General remark on the evaluation criteria for Dose Efficiency The Dose Efficiency evaluated in the clinical sections for Standard Brain. Standard Abdomen and Helical Abdomen is performed through the Q2 formula.

Inner ear / High Resolution Spine With the introduction of Multi slice scanners the emphasis of scanning is changed from axial to volume acquisition. Since the slice thickness’ varies between 0.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Standard brain / Standard abdomen / Helical Abdomen In the acquisition protocols of the standard brain mode. In clinical environment the MTF is subject to deteriorate because of motion artifacts in case slower rotation speeds are used. the scan time varies between 0. Therefore the Z-sensitivity is determined by the operator and not by the equipment anymore. This is why we separate the acquisition from the reconstruction and therefore define the beam width and image width separately.75 and 2. At the moment of establishing the scan protocols it was clearly stated that the major purpose of these protocols is to acquire isotropic volumes for high quality MPR’s and three-dimensional reconstruction. In contradiction to single slice Helical scanning. Frequently modern scan protocols use thin beam width acquisitions and thicker image width reconstruction. Measuring the volume resolution through scanning and reconstruction of a three dimensional object is more appropriate.5 and 1. best regards Hans Baartman Product manager CT 38 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . There is no reference that the measurements are achieved at the shortest scan time with the highest sampling rate. This type of reconstruction requires other (softer) convolution filters than those used for pure axial scanning. Reduction of motion artifacts and anatomical coverage in a single breathold enabled by the reduction in scantime is not taken into consideration. multiple rotation acquisition) and therefore compromise between speed and image noise. generating larger values of Z-sensitivity. Hope to have you informed sufficiently. the applied assessment protocols do not indicate any capability of isotropic volume acquisition neither resolution in longitudinal direction. Therefore focussing on the limiting resolution at axial scanning for these kind of examinations is not correct. the effective slice width in a Multi slice Helical scan is marginal dependent from the pitch factor.0 sec creating differences in the number of samples per image (single vs. Effective slice width is determined by the incorporation of adjacent data sets.25 mm.

ImPACT quote the measured FWHM of the z-sensitivity profiles in the clinical scan tables. with resulting problems in standardisation. We accept that there may be a need to draw the readers’ attention to this point. the scanner's capability of isotropic volume acquisition.9 mm is possible). ImPACT make Dose Efficiency (Q) comparisons using convolution kernels with similar MTF 50% and 10% values. Under these conditions the assumption that LCR is related to noise should be reasonably valid. 2) Assessment of z-axis resolution In the 'clinical scan tables' scans with different z-axis resolutions are compared. This reflects both what is recommended by each manufacturer and what the scanner is capable of (e. Although this relates more directly to the clinical situation it has the disadvantage of being insensitive and subjective. Although we accept that for very different noise power spectra the same noise value could give very different levels of perception. The reader must draw their own conclusion as to the detriment of a long scan time on image quality. At the resolution levels used in Standard Brain/ Standard Abdomen/ Helical Abdomen there is no significant advantage gained in terms of resolution in using a longer scan time.g. particularly in relation to patient movement. 3) Scan time used in clinical scan protocols The scan times used in the clinical scan tables reflect what is recommended by the manufacturers for clinical use.5 mm whereas on others only 0. The other method commonly used for defining LCR is the subjective method of quoting the size of object perceived at a given contrast and dose level. that is. These values are a measure of the z-axis resolution. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 39 . some scanner models can achieve a zaxis resolution of 0. ImPACT have made measurements using this methodology and the data will be presented in the individual reports on each scanner model. It is accepted that often the longer scan times will have a higher sampling rate. with high resolution scans.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments ImPACT response to Toshiba’s comments Toshiba’s comments relate primarily to three areas. which are responded to below: 1) Assessment of low contrast resolution (LCR) A common approach is to use image noise as a measure of LCR. and therefore may be preferred to be used to obtain high spatial resolution. This can be objectively measured and used to compare different systems.

ImPACT have developed test objects and measurement procedures suitable for intercomparing CT scanner performance. M. and x-ray film is used to obtain additional x-ray dose information. Platten. ImPACT ImPACT (Imaging Performance Assessment of Computed Tomography) is the MDA's CT evaluation facility. F. Members of ImPACT contributing to and writing this report: N. For each CT evaluation hundreds of images are obtained from the system under test and subsequently analysed using custom written software. MDA aims to ensure that evaluation techniques keep abreast of improvements in CT imaging performance and that MDA reports present evaluation information that is timely. D. and also to offer general technical and user advice on CT purchasing. A. London. ImPACT Bence-Jones Offices St.org web site: http://www. Edyvean (ImPACT Group Leader).Appendix 3: ImPACT and the MDA Background One of the roles of the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) is to fund evaluation programmes for medical devices and equipment. J. The programme includes evaluation of x-ray Computed Tomography Equipment currently available on the UK market. Lewis. ImPACT and MDA support to purchasers and users The ImPACT team is available to answer any queries with regard to the details of this report. It is based at St George's Hospital. Keat. useful and readily understood. acceptance testing and quality assurance.org MDA contact point for general information on the CT evaluation programme: Arthur Goodman Programme Manager Room 1207. Barrett and S. Dose measurements are made using ion chambers. part of St George's Healthcare NHS Trust.impactscan. Hannibal House Elephant and Castle London SE1 6TQ Tel: 020 7972 8156 Fax: 020 7972 8105 40 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . J. George's Hospital London SW17 0QT Tel: 020 8725 3366 Fax: 020 8725 3969 email: impact@impactscan.

Non-NHS customers are reminded that it is not possible to offer refunds for reports ordered in error.gov. A free catalogue of available reports can be obtained from the Orders Department. Orders Department Room 1207 Medical Devices Agency Hannibal House Elephant and Castle London SE1 6TQ Tel: Fax: E-mail: 020-7972 8181 020-7972 8105 dep@medical-devices. or downloaded from the MDA web site: http://www. and are for sale to commercial organisations and other interested parties. If you are not a representative of the NHS.gov. stating the number. you will be invoiced separately.medical-devices. title and quantity of each report required.uk . an Executive Agency of the Department of Health. Your reports will be despatched by second class post the following working day.gov. They are available free of charge to the UK National Health Service (NHS).uk Enquiries General publication enquiries should be directed to the Orders Department: Tel: 020-7972 8181 Fax: 020-7972 8105 E-mail: dep@medical-devices.MEDICAL DEVICES AGENCY MDA Evaluation Reports MDA evaluation reports are published by the Medical Devices Agency.uk Ordering Send your order to the address given below.

ISBN 1 84182 702 9 Smart number 36 30974 1 .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarga
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->