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

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

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

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

0 Scanner GE LightSpeed Plus Philips Mx8000 Siemens Sensation 4 Toshiba Aquilion Mean 6 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . Reconstruction field of view: 250 mm (head) and 380 mm (body).5 1. It can be expressed in a number of ways. which combines measurements of noise.8 265 4.41 0.0 6.2 2.5 5.0 c/cm).1 5. The imaging parameters used for these scans are chosen to minimise slight variations that occur for different kV.6 6.3 1.37 0.6 3.40 MTF50 (c/cm) 3.9 356 4.4 MTF50 (c/cm) 3. Scan time: 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 9.9 6.40 0. 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. image noise at 50 or 15 mGy and MTF values are also shown.6 6.6 6. Slice thickness: 4 x 5 mm for head.8 285 4. scan times and reconstruction algorithm.1 6.8 3.7 5. Z-sensitivity.2 6.5 or 2 s for head.7 Noise (%) 1.6 180 9.6 3. The mAs setting that would result in a CTDIw of 50 mGy for head and 15 mGy for body scanning is listed. MTF10 of 6. In the two tables below the scanners are ranked according to their Q2 value.8 241 4.5 Q2 6.5 3.1 1.8 1.6 1.2 3.2 1.5 MTF10 (c/cm) 6.8 Noise (%) 0.6 3.4 c/cm. 1s or faster for body.5 5. ImPACT normally use the 'Q-value'.7 195 9.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 thicknesses.41 0.5 MTF10 (c/cm) 6.4 3. high contrast resolution.8 214 9.3 5. 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. The Q2 values presented in this section are for head and body imaging.4 3. 2 x 10 mm for body.1 Q2 2.6 130 9. slice thickness and dose to produce an imaging figure of merit (see Appendix 2).7 2.

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. Limiting resolution looks at the highest spatial resolution that can be achieved with the scanner. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 7 .5 MTF10 (c/cm) 21.7 8. Limiting resolution Recon Filter U90u E FC90 EDGE MTF50 (c/cm) 15. fine focal spot. sharpest reconstruction algorithm.e.4 9. long (>1 s) scan time.Scanner performance Spatial resolution The spatial resolution figures given below show the capabilities of the scanners to reproduce fine detail within an image. small reconstruction field of view.8 14.9 10. using a clinical reconstruction algorithm.2 17.0 13.

especially for narrow beam collimations where post-patient collimation may be necessary to bring the imaged slice thickness closer to the nominal value.64 GE LightSpeed Plus Siemens Volume Zoom Philips Mx8000 Toshiba Aquilion 2 x 0.2 1.1 4.45 1.6 0. The total z-sensitivity figure is the sum of individual imaged widths except for the Siemens Volume Zoom for 1 and 0. Error bars on the graph reflect the accuracy of measurements of the section thickness (± 0.2 mm) and dose profiles (± 0.0 5.5 0.0 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 .9 0. Scanners are ranked according to geometric efficiency.69 GE LightSpeed Plus 4 x 1.7 4.7 0.1 0. the geometric efficiency should be 1.5 mm settings.2 6.46 0.1 7. This is expressed as the ratio of the axial imaged slice section thickness relative to the z-axis dose profile.2 mm). and the Marconi Mx8000 and Toshiba Aquilion for 0.6 0.5 Philips Mx8000 0.0 5.5 0.2 2. The graph presents data for all slice widths. Geometric efficiency values of greater than 1 can occur within the accuracy limits of the measurements.6 2.5 mm.3 0.6 4. For optimum imaging.5 2 x 0. The data is presented in the form of a table and a graph.625 2 x 0.4 0.2 0.9 2.0 0.45 0.73 Philips Mx8000 4x1 1. but it is often less.8 4.25 1.0 1.7 5.94 0.2 0.6 0.6 1.8 1.5 4 x 0.Scanner performance Geometric efficiency Geometric efficiency is a measure of the scanners dose utilisation in the z-axis. 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.9 0. showing how geometric efficiency varies with nominal imaged slice width.6 GE LightSpeed Plus 0.0 0.8 Geometric Efficiency 0. Slice zDose Total zGeometric Scanner thickness sensitivity profile sensitivity efficiency (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Siemens Sensation 4 4x1 1.70 Toshiba Aquilion 4x1 1.

5 150 0.37 2.6 1.29 3.6 1.4 6. Scan Slice FOV Recon CTDIW z-sens.1 5.5 7 Pitch ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 9 .0 6.7 3.75 4x5 250 UI-B* 35 4.5 3.6 2. It should be noted that the exposure parameters listed were those suggested by the manufacturer.0 3.7 15 8.7 6.7 4x5 380 B 18 4.8 6.6 0.4 Helical abdomen Helical abdomen scan.5 6.9 3.22 3.8 0.5 0.8 0. Note that in these tables.9 6.75 6.5 5 0. Listed alphabetically. In particular.8 250 0. Scanner GE LightSpeed Plus Philips Mx8000 Siemens Sensation 4 Toshiba Aquilion MEAN kVp mAs 120 120 120 120 Scan time (s) 80 0. Recon CTDIW z-sens. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) (mm) (mm) Filter (mGy) (mm) 2 x10 380 Stnd 7 9.1 6. 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 9.9 1.8 6.9 0.5 3.5 Siemens Sensation 4 120 207 5 B30 14 5.7 3. the scanners are listed alphabetically by manufacturer.5 0.5 s scan setting Scanner kVp mAs Scan Slice time (s) (mm) 0.2 5.0 MEAN 46 7.9 5.2 Toshiba Aquilion 120 150 3 FC10 22 7.8 Siemens Sensation 4 120 260 1 2x8 250 H40 43 7. as it does not have a 0.5 Slice FOV Recon CTDIW z-sens.6 6.0 Toshiba Aquilion 120 300 1 2 x 10 240 FC27 62 9.4 2. Listed alphabetically.Scanner performance Clinical scan tables These are a sub-set of the standard ImPACT clinical scan tables for a range of examination types.9 *The UI-B filter on the Mx8000 has changed since the ImPACT assessment Scanner kVp mAs Standard abdomen Axial abdomen scan.2 2 x 10 380 B30 17 9.26 3.1 MEAN 17 6.9 Philips Mx8000 120 250 0.4 4.4 6.32 3.7 1.7 3.3 * The LightSpeed QX/i Advantage would use 0.5 220 0. but in practice they will vary from site to site. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) Filter (mGy) (mm) GE LightSpeed Plus* 120 160 6 Stnd 10 6. which define patient dose.4 1.4 3.5 5 0.5 Philips Mx8000 120 250 5 B 14 6.6 6.6 6.8 s scan time.8 2.1 3.2 2.1 2 x 10 380 FC10 17 9. Listed alphabetically. the settings for mA and scan time. Standard brain Head scan reconstructed to show low contrast brain detail.8 1. may vary widely from one centre to another.

using a narrow slice for good resolution in the z-axis.7 18.5 4 x 0.3 11.5 Slice FOV Recon CTDIW z-sens.5 Slice FOV Recon CTDIW z-sens.8 2 1 0.5 180 D 41 2.2 4 x 2.0 4.7 2 x 0.4 10.5 120 U90 42 0.4 13 7.4 12.4 37 2.5 15. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (mm) (mm) Filter (mGy) (mm) (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) 2x 0.6 33.4 16.2 12. 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) 0.0 10.5 High resolution spine High contrast spine examination.2 11 7.5 120 B60 30 2.5 1 1.8 4x2 120 FC30 38 1.Scanner performance Inner ear High contrast inner ear exam.9 11 7.5 120 FC81 73 0.5 18. Noise MTF50 MTF10 (%) (c/cm) (c/cm) (mm) (mm) Filter (mGy) (mm) 2x2.0 8.1 59 0.4 13 9.7 4x1 120 U. 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 1.8 4 x 2./E 62 1.4 9 6.8 17.9 6.4 11.3 9. Listed alphabetically. Listed alphabetically.1 10 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .5 120 Bone+ 38 2.6 9.H.63 120 Bone+ 45 0.9 12.7 11.9 11.

10. 10 ± 30 Laser ±2 mm 3rd Low voltage 72 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 3rd Low voltage 72 18. 1.5.75. 1. 1. 32. 16 ± 30 Laser ± 0.5mm at centre of gantry Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 3rd Low voltage 70 50 0. 10 5. 0. 2. 2. 40. 10 ± 30 Laser Info.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. 40. 5. 32. 8.5. 2.5. 8. 24. 1. not available ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 11 . 3.25. 1. 10 ± 30 Laser ± 1mm at any laser to patient distance Philips Mx8000 Quad 3rd Low voltage 70 25 and 50 0. 7. 4. 50 50 0. 24. 8.625.5. 2.5. 2.5.5. 5.5. 5. 3. 8. 5. not available ± 30 Laser Info. 18. 1. 3. 4.5.

102 86 -102 48 30 .25 200 0.25 200 1 .100.95 30 205 180 (±0.95 73 .99 51 48 .100 ± 0.5 .25mm) 205 (±1mm) 200 200 200 200 500 205 500 205 12 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .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).5 182 10 or 100 ± 0.87 30 30 .100.150 ± 0.99 88 .25 182 10 or 100 ± 0.87 73 .8 48 48 .25 GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Carbon fibre 239 x 62 (42 just for cradle) Philips Mx8000 Quad Carbon fibre 243 x 67.8 86 .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 . 170 (axial & scout) [160] 160 (helical). 170 (axial & scout) [160] 165 157 144 144 170 [160] up to 100 ± 0.

100.5 x 0.500 (1mA steps) High frequency Rotation assembly 48 Toshiba Aquilion Multi High frequency Rotation assembly 60 80.9 4.8 x 1.65 (70kV. 80. 100.3 840 6.6 x 0.5 735 Oil to air One year (unlimited rotations) Oil to air Oil to air 160.7 0.5 x 0. 53.6 Toshiba Aquilion Multi Toshiba Megacool 0. 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 0.7 x 1.7 0.000 rotations ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 13 . claimed equiv.2mmTi (body) 5.5 1.2 Toshiba Helicool 0.000 rotations 7.6 x 1. 140 140 10 .386 Anode heat capacity (MHU) Maximum anode cooling rate (kHU/min) Method of cooling 6.4 GE Performix Marconi DFS 0.000 rotations 200.9 x 1. 120.8 x 1.2 > 5. 135 135 10 .75 (70kV.0 (nominal.500 (10mA steps) (10mA steps) Max. 2 mm > 1 (inherent) > 1 (inherent) PTFE + + 1. head) 5.3 (run at 80% full loading) 730 4.7 0. 90. 120.2 optional] Philips Mx8000 Quad High frequency Rotation assembly 60 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi High frequency Rotation assembly 60 80. 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 1.500 (5mA steps) (1mA steps) [10-350 / 440] 80.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. 120.5 2 mm PTFE + 0.3 1. to 6.000 seconds of scanning Oil/forced air Guaranteed tube life 200.9 x 0. body) 0.5) 864 Oil/forced air with liquid metal bearings 200.400 10 .6mmTi (head). 120. 120.2 [42. 100. 140 28 .5 + 1.440 28 .9 x 0.8 1.

5. 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 5 2 x 2.5. 2 from standby 2-3 3 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 12 from fully off. 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.Specification comparison Detection system GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Detector type Solid state (HiLight / Lumex) 888 (plus 18 reference elements) 16 16 x 1. 16 slices March 2003 Toshiba Aquilion Multi Solid state 896 (plus 1 pair ref detectors) 34 4 x 0. 2 x 1. approx. 2 x 5 20 16 slices now. 6 from standby 3 2 2 from fully off. 0 from standby 2 (0 in an emergency) 1 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 2 from fully off.5 30 x 1 32 8 slices March 2002. 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. 2 x 1.5 30 x 1 32 8 slices March 2002.5. 2 x 2. 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 1.5.25 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.

120. 4 x 2. 2 x 10 4 x 8. 120.75. 4 x 3. 0. 135 135 Scan times for axial scans (s) * = Partial scans kV settings available mA range and step size 28 .5. 2 x 10 2 x 8. 4 x 4. 100. 0. 3 3. 2.7 . 0. 4 x 5. 140 80.1 .3*. 4 x 1. 4 0. 0.5. 0. 4 x 5 0. 4 x 2. 2 x 10 4 x 3. 120. 2.625.8.5. 2. 4 x 4. 140 140 10 .50 (0. 3. 4 x 2.75. 0. 4] 80.400 10 . 0.5. 4 x 0.75.75.25. 1. 2 x 0.54*.5.50 0 . 0.5 3 [0.500 (10mA steps) (10mA steps) (10mA steps) Max.500 10 . 80.5. 4 x 1. 1. 1.6.9. 4 x 5. 4 x 5.440 28 .5. 4 x 1. 120.50 2 x 0. 4 x 2. 4 x 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 . 0.5. 4 x 2.25.5. 100. 4 x 3.5*. 2 x 10 4 x 8. 0.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. 0. 0.2.6 to 50 Philips Mx8000 Quad 2. 1. 0.5. 2 x 8. 1.7. 100.1 steps) Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 5 . 0.5.5. 90. 1.36*. 4 x 1.0.50 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 0 . 1. 2 x 0.5 . 0. 120.500 (5mA steps) (1mA steps) [10-350 / 440] 80.75. 1. 4 x 5.5. 2 1.5. 4 x 1. 1 x 1.3*.

8. 1.5.I. not available W.5 4 2.5.5. 5. 4. 4. 3. 1.5. 5. 0. 6 Recommended pitches for optimal image quality 2 slice : 1 1.5. High order non linear filters 2. 5. 0. . 360º.5. .7. 4. 1.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) 0.75. 600 mm 1200 mm ± 30 ± 30 16 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .1 steps) Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 0. 1 [0.P. 1] 4 2 slice : 1 4-slice : 0. 1.5 Gantry tilt range for helical scanning (degrees) 100 100 Info.5. 0.P.25 . .5 Philips Mx8000 Quad 0. not available W.75. 0. 3.75s) (180mA.5. 5.5.5s) 133 115 120 (200mA. 100 Info.7.2) (freely selectable) 1 to 8 0.5 4 2. 3.5. 360º. 1s) (160mA.5. 1.5s) 100 133 200 (150mA. 5. 1. Muscot Maximum number of rotations in one helical run at standard abdomen parameters 200 200 (300mA. MDMP and Crossbeam) 70sec (300mA) 90sec (270mA) 110sec (250mA) 120 1600 mm [1285 mm] ± 30 180º. 0.5. . 5. .5 4 1 to 8 (0.5. 5. 8 and 1.75 3.5. 2. 5. 2.5. the maximum helical scan distance using a 1 mm imaged slice thickness and a pitch of 1.75 and 1.5. 3. . 0. 3.I. 4. 1.5s) 100 Maximum continuous scan time (s) Starting with a cold tube.5.5.75s) (190mA. 1. 4-slice : 0.6.5s) 66 (100mA. 3. 360º. 1. 6 Helical interpolation algorithms available SureView (Adaptive Axial Interpolator) 180º. 3.5.5.5. 0.9.5. 6 2. 5. Muscot 180º.75.5 4 1 to 8 (0. 6 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 0. 3.75s) (300mA.5 GE Proprietary algorithms (SmartHelical.5. 1.75.

5 mm < ± 0.1. 180. PA.390 0. 400. 90.5 ± 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. 270 (oblique in 5º steps) Yes Toshiba Aquilion Multi 1390 width: 240.390 0.w. 180.25 < 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 . length: 200 .5 mm ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 17 .25 ± 0. 500. 90. release acquisition ± 0. 400. 180.25 ± 0.359° (1° steps) Philips Mx8000 Quad 1000 width: 500 length: 100 -1000 (1mm steps) 0. 500.1. 270 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 1024 512 x 1024 AP. length: 200 . LAT (oblique in 10º steps) Yes 1390 width: 240. 90.5 < ± 0.25 ± 0.

150mAs.Specification comparison Manufacturer’s performance data GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Image Quality 0% MTF: 1% MTF: 15. 20 mm 6. E-filter) Small Focus) 4.4 20: 21.5 (s) 10: 11.75s.2 8. 0.9 (l) 20: 23.7 (s) 4: 7. 300mA.75 sec. 1s.3 120 kVp.1 (s) 2: 5. small focus) 2% MTF : 14. 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. Std EB filter.5 lp/cm (200mA.2 (s) 120kV. 0. 50mm FOV.3 (s) Dose profile FWHM (mm) (focal spot size in brackets) 18 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . 150 mAs .0 lp/cm 2. small focus 2% MTF : 14. 20 mm 5. 400mA.1 120 kV. 2x10 FC41 FC41 mm Air: -1000 ± 10 HU.3% @ 13. not available 120 kVp.4 (l) 10: 11. 13.6 (s) 8: 10.63:1.2 (s) 2: 5.6(l) 15: 16. 200mA. 20 mm 4.75 s scan. body.3 20: 21. 20 mm 17.5 (s) 5: 6.0 (l) 12: 15.9 13.5 (l) 20: 22.std 10mm. 440 mA. DFOV.5 11. 120kV.0 8. 0. U95u.7 (s) 120kV.2 25.2 (l) 16: 19.5 (l) 16: 17.centre of CTDI phantom . 100mAs. 300mA. 10mm. 25cm 25 cm DFOV. FOV. 120kV.7 (s) 1.periphery of CTDI phantom Info. 27 alg mGy at center of phantom Water : 0 ± 3 HU ± 4 Hu 0% MTF: 30lp/cm 0.75s. 260 mAs. mGy: 120kVp. 0. 1s. not available Info.7 32: 35. 10 mm slice 10mm.75 sec. 25 cm scan Edge alg.75s. 0.0 mm @ 0.5 mm slice.5 (l) 1:2.3%: @ 17mGy: 120kV. water: 0 ± 4HU 120kV. 1s.6 14. 1s. 150mAs.3% 5mm @ 120 kVp.8 20 120 kV.2 (s) CT number accuracy Dose CTDI100 (mGy/100 mAs) for axial standard brain scans at given parameters: . 260 mAs.2 13. 2 x 10 mm 5.4 (s) 8: 10.8 (l) 16: 18.3%: 5mm @ 0. 200mA.8 (l) 4: 5.25: 3.3% 5mm @ 0.9 120 kV 4. 0.7 (s) 1: 2.9(s) 120kV 13.15 (l) 4: 5.3 330 mA.5 (s) 2x0.6 20 120 kV.5 lp/cm (200mA.periphery of CTDI phantom CTDI100 (mGy/100mAs) for axial standard abdomen scans .9 (s) 4: 7.centre of CTDI phantom . 20 mm 21.3 20: 20. 2 x 10 mm 18. (10cm DFOV.3 (l) 16:16.8 (l) 10: 11.4 lp/cm 24 lp/cm 10% MTF : (0.1 32: 35.5s.7 (l) 12: 15. 20 mm 16.0 18.

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 2.5s scan). 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). Raster Art.5s scans) Yes No 896 Yes No 896 1800 views/sec (0. Suppression Protocol (RASP). Raster Art.5s). 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 .5s) Beam hardening correction. Suppression Protocol (RASP). correction. Stack scanning.320 views (in standard imaging mode) Yes Yes 672 (1344 channels) 1160 views/rot (0. (abdomen. correction Motion Recon of thick correction slices from (sequential thinner ones modes) Beam hardening correction. Iterative bone shoulder). 1200 views/sec (>0. Stack scanning. Motion pelvis. 2320 views/ rot (> 0.

512 x 1024. 1024 x 1024 -1024 to +8191 512 x 512. trackball. 768 x 768. keyboard Mouse. not available Info. film technique acquisition/ review and review and selection / and post review. cursor. not available Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 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. cursor. recon processing) processing) processing) image and filming) display) 512 x 512. 2 (acquisition/ 2 (acquisition/ up and review. 512 x 1024.240 to +30.Specification comparison Operator’s console GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Image monitor Diagonal dimension of image screen (inches) 20 18 (LCD) 18.710 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. keyboard Mouse. keyboard 20 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . keyboard Mouse.25 mm depends on pixel size Info. 1024 x 1024 -1024 to +3071 < 2 times image pixel size 512 x 512. 1024 x 1024 -1024 to +8191 Image display Image area matrix dimensions 1024 x 1024 1024 x 1024 -1024 to +3071 (-10. keyboard Mouse.

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 .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 7.3 Type and speed of CPU 2 x 2.66 GHz 2 GHz R5000 (scan console) + Pentium IV R12000 (min 1.

CD writer (standard) MOD.000 images) 18 (2000 data files) Philips Mx8000 Quad 63 63 27 (33.000 rotations Toshiba Aquilion Multi 45 90 16.65 (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) 0.000 data files) 45 90 16.6 (9600 compressed 512 x 512 512 x 512 images) CD-R: images .000 images 4.7 (write) Immediate (disk continually accessible) Less than 1s per image Approx.000 images) 4 (2.slightly 0.6 (9600 2. of data files) Archive options Archive options MOD (standard) MOD. 1 Approx.000 data files) Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 108 108 36 (60.6 (9400 losslessly compressed 512x512 images or 700 raw data files) 4.1 (15.000 images) 72 (70. 30 for 20 for full disk 20 for full disk full disk 2-3 Approx.slightly images .000 Rewritable MOD (standard) Rewritable MOD (standard) GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] 36 36 18 (20. of uncompressed 512x512 images) Hard disk capacity for storage of raw data files (Gbytes and no.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 images) 4.650 losslessly compressed 512 x 512 images) losslessly 2.1 (26. CD writer (standard) MOD: 4.000 images 4. 1 22 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .000 rotations Capacity of a single archive disk (Gbytes and no.

512 x 512 0. 30 prospective.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 25.9 (with IBO) [TBC] 26 [TBC] 23 60 50 prospective. 40 retro. 35 prospective. 512 x 512 0. 35 prospective. 1024 optional) 0. 512 x 512 0. 60 retro. 25 prospective. 512 (768.1 Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 256 x 256. 50 retro. 50 retro.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 .1 Philips Mx8000 Quad 340. 45 retro. 512 x 512 0.1 256 x 256. 45 prospective. 65 retro.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 Toshiba Aquilion Multi 256 x 256.

WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard (MIP & MinIP) (Angio MIP) MC-optional MC-standard. MC-standard. sagittal.MC-standard. MC-standard. WS-standard MC-standard. oblique. coronal. Axial. (Vol Rend 4D WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard (Volume Rendering) Angio) MC-optional. 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 . MC-standard. sagittal. MC-optional. oblique.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. any oblique (identical on console and workstations) Axial. curvilinear All planes. oblique. 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. MC-standard. standard WS-standard MC-Standard MC-standard. curvilinear Axial. coronal. coronal. MC-standard. WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard (MPR & (MPR) MPVR) Axial. MC-standard. MC-standard. curved oblique. MC-standard. paraaxial. MC-standard. MC-optional WS-standard MC-Option MC-optional. coronal. sagittal. sagittal. WS-standard (V-endo WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard (Navigator) Voyager) MC-standard MC-standard.

MC-optional MC-optional. WS-N/A MC-optional. 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. Snapshot) . WS-N/A MC-optional.Perfusion CT CT Perfusion optional (head (MC (MC-optional and body optional. WS-optional 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. WS-N/A MC-optional. WS-N/A MC-optional. WS-optional MC-optional. MC-optional. WS-optional (Osteo CT) MC-optional. optional (Heart View) Tagging) (Cardiac Imaging) Dental Perfusion software MC and WS. MC-standard. WS-N/A CT angiography MC-standard WS-standard. WS-optional (Q BMAP II) 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. Retrospective ECG-gated cardiac WS-Option MC & WSWS-N/A software (Retro. WS-optional MC-optional. MC-standard. not available ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 25 . WS-N/A Info. WS-N/A MC-optional. WS-optional) perfusion) WS .optional) MC-optional. not available Info. AVA (Vessel WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard WS-standard Assessment) (Angio MIP) option on WS MC-optional WS-optional (Dentascan) MC-optional. MC-standard.

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. humidity 40-80% 11. 550kg 750. rel. 15-75% 40-60% humidity 7. 60% nonair humidity humidity cond.Specification comparison Installation requirements GE LightSpeed Plus [QX/i] Philips Mx8000 Quad Siemens Toshiba Sensation 4 Asteion Multi 18-28 ºC. 550kg 3 phase 380-440V. rel. humidity 40-80% 18-28 ºC. Cooling Unit: Cooling Unit: 770. 3015-30° C. 90kVA 3 phase 380-480V. 15-75% 40-60% scanner room humidity Environmental requirements (max/min temperature. 4 patient/hour) Output to air 13. 200kg 750. Environmental requirements 30-60% nonair humidity humidity (max/min temperature. rel. humidity 40-80% 10.5 Water/water 13. rel. humidity 40-80% 18-28 ºC. rel.1 (75 rot/patient. 15-28 ºC. 66-83kVA 3 phase 380-440V.5 Water/water None 25 Not required. 90kVA 3 phase 380-480V. 550kg 980 x 800 x 585. 15-30° C. 15-28 ºC. 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. 500kg 3 phase 380480V.6 max Output to air Not necessary but recommended Toshiba Aquilion Multi 18-28 ºC. 550kg 408kg [336 1800 x 900 x 1815 x 905 x kg] 860.7 max Output to air Not necessary but recommended 15-26 ºC. 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. rel. 75kVA Power supply requirements 26 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . humidity) in cond.

humidity) for workstation 0-40 °C 15-30 ºC 20-85% rel.slightly compressed) compressed) 2. humidity at 40 ºC CD-R: 0.6 (9600 512 x 512 512 x 512 images .slightly images .6 (9400 (15.000 losslessly comp. MOD (optional) MOD: 4. noncond. humidity 40-80% ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 27 .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 40-80% 18-28 ºC.65 (4800 comp.1 (26. humidity 18-28 ºC.650 losslessly losslessly compressed compressed 512x512 images or 700 512 x 512 images) raw data files) 10-40 ºC. images) 256 x 256 matrix 2.7 GHz) Standard: AlatoView Silicon Graphics O2 Unix R12000. 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. 300 MHz Toshiba Aquilion Multi Standard: AlatoView Silicon Graphics O2 Unix R12000.3 2 x 2.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 (9600 Environmental requirements (max/min temperature. 300 MHz Standard HP X4000 Linux Red Hat 7.1 4. 2080 % rel.

and Modality and Modality Print. Print. and SCP. Query/Retrieve Query/Retrieve and Print and Print media interchange 28 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . (standard).). Storage SCU Storage SCU Query/Retrieve. Modality Worklist (opt. and SCP. (standard). Modality Retrieve. print. Print. Modality worklist worklist worklist Performed worklist (optional) (optional) procedure step (opt) Storage SCU Storage SCU Storage SCU 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. Storage SCU Storage SCU and SCP. Query/Retrieve Query/Retrieve SCU. Storage SCP (std. Print Query/ Storage SCP Query/Retrieve. and SCP.). Print. Query/Retrieve and SCP. Storage SCU and Print and Print Storage SCU Media service and SCP. class.

which was modified from the previous value used by ImPACT. in that a dose efficient scanner will produce good resolution at minimum dose and noise. However. and using a 0.1mm thickness. X-ray dose can be regarded as a 'cost' of this information. Q1. spatial resolution and slice sensitivity are fundamental parameters describing the amount of object information retrievable from an image. expressed as a percentage for a 5cm2 region of interest at the centre of the field of view in the standard ImPACT water phantoms. In general. z1 = the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the imaged slice profile (z-sensitivity). or its image quality. is the same one used in Comparison Report 12 (MDA/00/11). as defined in EUR 16262 The Q-factor is in part empirical and it should be used with caution. 6mm diameter tungsten disc for helical scanning CTDIw = weighted CT dose index. Q2 is defined as follows: f av Q2 = 2 σ z1CTDI w where: σ = image noise. it is meaningless to quote any one of these measurements without reference to the others. 3 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 29 . This figure is derived from a relationship between image quality and dose received. The Q-value incorporates dose. 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). It is of most importance when considering the standard scans for head or body. fav = spatial resolution. as its derivation relies on assumptions of the shape of convolution filter used. with a conservative estimate of ±10%. This is measured using the inclined plates method for axial imaging. The uncertainty in this value is up to about +/-15%. Comparisons between scanners will be more reliable when comparing scans reconstructed with similar convolution filters. Q2. noise. It is not an absolute figure. spatial resolution and slice width into one number. A dose efficiency factor has a fundamental meaning. The Q-value used in this comparison report.Appendix 1: Image quality assessment and Q Statistical noise. it can take a number of forms depending on how the various parameters are measured and quoted.

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. 30 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 .

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

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.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. 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. 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.

which reduces a complex issue of image quality to a single number combining spatial resolution. Tremendous efforts have been made by all involved to deal with this. Whilst you do not wish for a detailed response from us. the SOMATOM VolumeZoom uses an optimized prefiltration which enhances gray/white matter contrast.0 2. it could be possible for some clincal teams to take this factor and regard it as a categorical statement regarding dose efficiency. further supporting information is detailed below this. Impact Value Standard brain: Standard Abdomen Helical Abdomen *) New Value 7. Given a 15% uncertainty.7 1. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 33 . however. We note that you do point out the limitations of the ‘Q’ factor in the appendices. This feature is not reflected at all in the corresponding Q-value. dose and noise level at the centre of rotation.0 2. Thank you for your invitation to respond to the ImPACT Comparison report. as quoted in the ImPACT report.5% for a water phantom. The results are summarised in the following table. By not utilizing this optimized prefiltration the Q-value could be increased by 8. there is one aspect we would wish to highlight in some reasonable detail and I hope that you agree that this is appropriate. but the clinical advantage would be lost. we believe that the performance of this system in delivering outstanding clinical images is not properly reflected in this ranking. I am referring to the ‘Q’ factor. Standard Brain 1) Pre-Filtration For head imaging. we would like to acknowledge the work and effort that you and your team have put into these reports.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Response from Siemens Medical Solutions 10/05/01 ImPACT Comparison Reports. our own Physicists have commented on several possibilities to increase the Q-value by alternative choices of protocol parameters. Manufacturer's Response Dear Sue.8 1.2. Since this places the Volume Zoom in a ranking amongst different manufacturers in a poor position. Firstly.3 Rank 1 3 *) 1 5. the difference is not significant.9 The number 1 in this category has a Q-value of 2. In the following.

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. Therefore. the Qvalue would be increased by 8%. 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. Standard Abdomen 1) Bowtie-filter See Standard Brain. which is also available. the VolumeZoom uses a dedicated image filter for head imaging. g. e. the Q-factor can be increased by 8%.8 -> 7. It is not effective for a simple water phantom like the one used for the determination of the Q-value. Therefore the benefits of the ORA-filter are not reflected in the Q-value. because the head scan field of view is not restricted to 250mm as with many competitors.0).0). the standard head protocols on the VolumeZoom use a rather sharp kernel (H40). the noise texture and the delineation of anatomical structures. 3) Convolution Kernel Convolution kernels used for head imaging on the VolumeZoom are designed to optimize the visual appearance of the image. when both soft tissue and bony structures are present.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. if heads are not exactly centered. at the cost of inferior image homogeneity.7 -> 2. leaving the Volume Zoom on position 3 in the list. 2) Convolution kernel As discussed above. This filter reduces the image noise without degrading image sharpness. at the cost of inferior image homogeneity and loss of image quality. 34 ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 . B30 is the clinically preferred kernel. Using B35. the Q-factor for brain imaging on the Volume Zoom can be increased by 21% in total (5. Furthermore. Using a smoother kernel (H20) similar to the other manufacturers. changing the ranking such that the Volume Zoom is on position 1 in the list. the Q-factor could be increased by 8% using the previous design of the bowtie filter. For the majority of applications. Conclusion Using the modifications discussed above. the use of different convolution kernels can increase Q. This is advantageous both for body imaging and for head imaging.

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

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

2001 Below you will find Toshiba’s manufacturers comment on ImPACT’s Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison Report. Please add this letter or its content to your official Blue Cover Version of this report.90 % MTF. Next to this an objective assessment of the Low Contrast detectability is missing.5 mm can be converted to a spatial frequency of 2 LP/cm that can be detected between 80 . the combination of these factors has only a partial relation with Dose Efficiency for Low Contrast Detectability and Image Quality. General remark on the evaluation criteria for Dose Efficiency The Dose Efficiency evaluated in the clinical sections for Standard Brain. The low contrast resolution is described by the shape of the MTF curve at very low frequencies. 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. however the 10 and 50 % frequencies of the MTF curve states something about the spatial resolution (high contrast resolution) of the applied filter. Version 3.5 mm @ 2. 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.5 HU difference. This implies that the report does not evaluate the image quality in the Z-direction. In Toshiba's case the optimal low contrast resolution is specified as 2. 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. Although the individual parameters used in this formula have a certain relation with image quality. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 37 . Due to the difference in reconstruction algorithms and X-ray spectra optimisation of the different manufacturers. being one of the most important of Multislice CT scanners. the noise patterns differs and therefore the noise figure is not decisive for the low contrast detectability of the individual systems. A resolution of 2.02. The advantage of volumetric scanning over single slice scanning is the easy realization of isotropic volumes whereby the resolution in all directions is identical. Standard Abdomen and Helical Abdomen is performed through the Q2 formula. The ImPACT measurement shows that the average of 10 & 50 % MTF of all convolution filters have approximately the same value. This means that the Q2 factor is for the largest proportion defined by the CTDIw and the noise values.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments Response from Toshiba Medical Systems Subject MS Comparison report Dear Sue Our reference JB/2001/25 Date May 6. Summary The assessment is primarily based on an evaluation protocol for single slice Helical CT scanners.

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

g. This reflects both what is recommended by each manufacturer and what the scanner is capable of (e. ImPACT make Dose Efficiency (Q) comparisons using convolution kernels with similar MTF 50% and 10% values. ImPACT quote the measured FWHM of the z-sensitivity profiles in the clinical scan tables.5 mm whereas on others only 0. Although this relates more directly to the clinical situation it has the disadvantage of being insensitive and subjective. It is accepted that often the longer scan times will have a higher sampling rate. 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. The reader must draw their own conclusion as to the detriment of a long scan time on image quality. the scanner's capability of isotropic volume acquisition. that is. and therefore may be preferred to be used to obtain high spatial resolution. 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.Appendix 2: Manufacturers' comments ImPACT response to Toshiba’s comments Toshiba’s comments relate primarily to three areas.9 mm is possible). We accept that there may be a need to draw the readers’ attention to this point. 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. 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. This can be objectively measured and used to compare different systems. with high resolution scans. 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. 2) Assessment of z-axis resolution In the 'clinical scan tables' scans with different z-axis resolutions are compared. These values are a measure of the z-axis resolution. with resulting problems in standardisation. Under these conditions the assumption that LCR is related to noise should be reasonably valid. particularly in relation to patient movement. ImPACT Four Slice CT Scanner Comparison v 8 39 . Although we accept that for very different noise power spectra the same noise value could give very different levels of perception.

Dose measurements are made using ion chambers. It is based at St George's Hospital. 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. part of St George's Healthcare NHS Trust.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. Barrett and S. acceptance testing and quality assurance. ImPACT Bence-Jones Offices St. 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 . Platten. Lewis. George's Hospital London SW17 0QT Tel: 020 8725 3366 Fax: 020 8725 3969 email: impact@impactscan. Keat. A. Edyvean (ImPACT Group Leader).impactscan. J. London. F. For each CT evaluation hundreds of images are obtained from the system under test and subsequently analysed using custom written software. M.org web site: http://www. 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. and also to offer general technical and user advice on CT purchasing. ImPACT ImPACT (Imaging Performance Assessment of Computed Tomography) is the MDA's CT evaluation facility. J. Members of ImPACT contributing to and writing this report: N. useful and readily understood. D. and x-ray film is used to obtain additional x-ray dose information. ImPACT have developed test objects and measurement procedures suitable for intercomparing CT scanner performance. The programme includes evaluation of x-ray Computed Tomography Equipment currently available on the UK market.org MDA contact point for general information on the CT evaluation programme: Arthur Goodman Programme Manager Room 1207.

title and quantity of each report required.gov.gov.gov. and are for sale to commercial organisations and other interested parties.uk Ordering Send your order to the address given below. A free catalogue of available reports can be obtained from the Orders Department.medical-devices. 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. Your reports will be despatched by second class post the following working day. If you are not a representative of the NHS. They are available free of charge to the UK National Health Service (NHS). Non-NHS customers are reminded that it is not possible to offer refunds for reports ordered in error.uk . or downloaded from the MDA web site: http://www.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. an Executive Agency of the Department of Health.MEDICAL DEVICES AGENCY MDA Evaluation Reports MDA evaluation reports are published by the Medical Devices Agency. stating the number. you will be invoiced separately.

ISBN 1 84182 702 9 Smart number 36 30974 1 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful