Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
OtherIMAGING

CT Artifact Recognition for the Nuclear Technologist

Robert Popilock, Kumar Sandrasagaren, Lowell Harris and Keith A. Kaser
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology June 2008, 36 (2) 79-81; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.107.047431
Robert Popilock
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kumar Sandrasagaren
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lowell Harris
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Keith A. Kaser
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The goal of this article is to make the PET/CT and SPECT/CT operator aware of common artifacts found in CT. In diagnostic imaging, the ability to render an accurate diagnosis requires the technologist to take steps to optimize image quality and recognize when image quality has been compromised—that is, when there is an image artifact. One way these artifacts occur is through the inability of the CT linear attenuation image to precisely represent the linear attenuation map of a 2-dimensional section through the body. The reasons for this inability are multifold. First, CT is subject to the laws of x-ray quantum physics resulting in noise in all CT images. Moreover, all current CT x-ray systems generate a spectrum of energies. Also, CT scanners use detectors of finite dimension, as are the x-ray focal spots; reconstruct images from a finite number of samples distributed over a finite number of views; and acquire the data for each reconstruction over a finite period.

  • PET/CT
  • quality assurance
  • SPECT/CT
  • CT
  • CT artifact recognition
  • x-ray

Although the appearance and cause of CT artifacts might be understood by the CT technologist (1,2), the proliferation of hybrid SPECT/CT and PET/CT systems may find nuclear technologists disadvantaged. Publications featuring hybrid systems generally focus on CT as an attenuation correction tool (3,4) and provide little information on the optimization of CT image quality through artifact recognition. What follows is a description of common CT artifacts and their root causes.

STREAK ARTIFACTS

Streak artifacts may be produced when the object of interest is moved, undersampled, or corrupted because of data sampling errors. CT assumes that the object being imaged is static (unchanging) during the scan and that the object is imaged with adequate sampling (rays and views) and without inconsistency (photon or counting interruptions). Figure 1A shows streak artifacts in a uniform phantom. Undersampling may result in the presence of streak artifacts that generally emanate from objects of high density and sharp edges.

FIGURE 1. 
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1. 

Examples of CT artifacts: streak artifact (A), motion artifact (B), beam-hardening artifact (C), ring artifacts (D and E), and bloom artifact (F).

MOTION ARTIFACTS

Motion artifacts appear as object boundaries that are ill-defined and associated with streaking adjacent to structures with high densities such as contrast-filled vessels. Motion artifacts commonly result in shape distortion and bright or dark shadowing, which can appear like disease. Sources of motion-related artifacts (5,6) fall into the categories of voluntary motion and involuntary motion. Voluntary motion is often associated with respiration, external body movement, and swallowing. Involuntary movement is attributed to the beating heart, peristalsis, coughing, and sneezing. All sources of motion result in movement of the object relative to the scanning plane.

The technologist must be keenly aware of the patient's condition and inherent motion associated with imaging the anatomy of interest. Figure 1B shows an example of a streak artifact caused by motion as a result of swallowing during the scan. Although manufacturers have implemented routine protocols to balance trade-offs in image quality and patient compliance, as well as sophisticated methods (prospective electrocardiography triggering and pulmonary gating) to image organ systems in motion, the technologist should consider adjustments to rotation speed and pitch to optimize study duration and maximize patient compliance.

BEAM-HARDENING ARTIFACTS

Beam-hardening artifacts result from the nonlinear (polychromatic) nature of the x-ray beam as it leaves the x-ray tube housing and from limitations associated with preferentially eliminating lower-energy photons from the beam—thus hardening the beam. Recognizing that the x-ray beam is polychromatic and that attenuation coefficients are energy-based, manufacturers have attempted to decrease beam-hardening effects through the use of inherent and protocol-selected beam filtration, software corrections, and calibrations specific to each peak kilovoltage setting. Beam hardening is a complex paradigm that involves trade-offs related to patient dose, image noise, contrast, and CT number uniformity. Therefore, technologists must carefully consider selection of imaging parameters, filters, and patient position within the scanner.

Beam hardening presents as dark banding between dense objects such as bone. Variations of contrast and intensity across an object can appear like certain pathologic conditions and potentially affect diagnosis. The radiologist can identify beam-hardening artifacts by interrogating multiple planes, because the dark banding generally aligns with the object path. Figure 1C shows an example of beam hardening.

RING ARTIFACTS

Ring or band artifacts are caused by a variety of factors influencing the counting accuracy of a detector, such as gain variations, radiation damage to the detector, and linearity irregularities. Ring and band artifacts appear as intensely bright or dark circular artifacts within the image and, when subtle, can mimic certain pathologic conditions. When pronounced, these artifacts are unlikely to cause misdiagnosis but will generally render the scan unreadable. Figures 1D and 1E demonstrate partial rings.

It is important to follow routine system calibration schedules aimed at establishing the proportionality of detector response for different scanning conditions (kilovoltage, collimator aperture, etc.) in an effort to minimize the aforementioned effects. It is also important to maintain the specified ambient room conditions for the scanning room to minimize temperature drift over time.

BLOOM ARTIFACTS

Bloom artifacts are a result of partial-volume effects or underranging caused by areas of photon starvation propagated by high-density structures, such as metal, within the scanned object. When subtle, these artifacts appear as shading, and when severe, as high-intensity streaks and areas of photon starvation. Figure 1F shows partial-volume artifacts. They are generally easily identified because they emanate from attenuation at sites of orthopedic implants, surgical staples and clips, and calcium deposits.

Manufacturers attempt to mitigate these artifacts through the use of interpolation models and reconstruction algorithms. For the technologist, decreasing pitch and applying z-axis filtering can be helpful.

CONCLUSION

Although CT artifact recognition has been well documented for the CT technologist, technologists with a nuclear medicine background responsible for SPECT/CT and PET/CT hybrid imaging systems may be less familiar with these artifacts. This article has attempted to make technologists aware of common artifacts found in CT and is not intend to be an exhaustive or authoritative source.

Footnotes

  • COPYRIGHT © 2008 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Lin P-J P, Beck TJ, Borras C, et al. Specification and Acceptance Testing of Computed Tomography Scanners. New York, NY: American Institute of Physics, Inc.; 1993. AAPM Report 39.
  2. 2.↵
    Zatz LM. Basic principles of computed tomography scanning. In: Newton TH, Potts DG, eds. Technical Aspects of Computed Tomography. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1981:3853–3876.
  3. 3.↵
    Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography: imaging protocols, artifacts, and pitfalls. Mol Imaging Biol. 2004;6:188–199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-ray–based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med. 2003;33:166–179.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Daly TR, Zink FE. Motion artifacts in subsecond conventional CT and electron-beam CT: pictorial demonstration of temporal resolution. Radiographics. 2000;20:1675–1681.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Herold CJ. Spiral computed tomography of pulmonary embolism. Eur Respir J. 2002;19(suppl):13S–21S.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  • Received for publication September 19, 2007.
  • Accepted for publication March 4, 2008.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 36 (2)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 36, Issue 2
June 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
CT Artifact Recognition for the Nuclear Technologist
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
CT Artifact Recognition for the Nuclear Technologist
Robert Popilock, Kumar Sandrasagaren, Lowell Harris, Keith A. Kaser
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Jun 2008, 36 (2) 79-81; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.107.047431

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
CT Artifact Recognition for the Nuclear Technologist
Robert Popilock, Kumar Sandrasagaren, Lowell Harris, Keith A. Kaser
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Jun 2008, 36 (2) 79-81; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.107.047431
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • STREAK ARTIFACTS
    • MOTION ARTIFACTS
    • BEAM-HARDENING ARTIFACTS
    • RING ARTIFACTS
    • BLOOM ARTIFACTS
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • PET/CT Image Artifacts Caused by the Arms
  • Technical Considerations in Brain Amyloid PET Imaging with 18F-Florbetapir
  • Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET/CT: The Need for a Standardized Field of View--A Referring-Physician Aid
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Early 10-Minute Postinjection [18F]F-FAPI-42 uEXPLORER Total-Body PET/CT Scanning Protocol for Staging Lung Cancer Using HYPER Iterative Reconstruction
  • Single- Versus Dual-Time-Point Imaging for Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloid Using 99mTc-Pyrophosphate
  • Does Arthrography Improve Accuracy of SPECT/CT for Diagnosis of Aseptic Loosening in Patients with Painful Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Show more Imaging

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire