Literature DB >> 18383668

A dose comparison study between XVI and OBI CBCT systems.

William Y Song1, Srijit Kamath, Shuichi Ozawa, Shlomi Al Ani, Alexei Chvetsov, Niranjan Bhandare, Jatinder R Palta, Chihray Liu, Jonathan G Li.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to establish a comprehensive set of dose measurements data obtained from the X-ray Volumetric Imager (XVI, Elekta Oncology Systems) and the On-Board Imager (OBI, Varian Medical Systems) cone-beam CT (CBCT) systems. To this end, two uniform-density cylindrical acrylic phantoms with diameters of 18 cm (head phantom) and 30 cm (body phantom) were used for all measurements. Both phantoms included ion chamber placement holes in the center and at periphery (2 cm below surface). For the XVI unit, the four standard manufacturer-supplied protocols were measured. For the OBI unit, the full bow tie and half bow tie (and no bow tie) filters were used in combination with the two scanning modes; namely, full-fan and half-fan. The total milliampere x seconds (mA s) setting was also varied for each protocol to establish the linear relationship between the dose deposited and the mA s used (with all other factors being held constant). Half-value layers in aluminum (Al) were also measured for beam characteristic determination. For the XVI unit, the average dose ranged from 0.1 to 3.5 cGy with the highest dose measured using the "prostate" protocol with the body phantom. For the OBI unit, the average dose ranged from 1.1 to 8.3 cGy with the highest dose measured using the full-fan protocol with the head phantom. The measured doses were highly linear as a function of mA s, for both units, where the measurement points followed a linear relationship very closely with R2 > 0.99 for all cases. Half-value layers were between 4.6- and 7.0-mm-Al for the two CBCT units where XVI generally had more penetrating beams at the similar kVp settings. In conclusion, a comprehensive series of dose measurements were performed on the XVI and the OBI CBCT units. In the process, many of the important similarities and differences between the two systems were observed and summarized in this work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18383668     DOI: 10.1118/1.2825619

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  37 in total

1.  Phase-specific cone beam computed tomography reduces reconstructed volume loss of moving phantom.

Authors:  H-L Chao; W-L Chen; C-C Hu; J-K Wu; C-J Wu; J C-H Cheng
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Monte Carlo evaluation of scatter mitigation strategies in cone-beam CT.

Authors:  Dimitrios Lazos; Jeffrey F Williamson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Progressive cone beam CT dose control in image-guided radiation therapy.

Authors:  Hao Yan; Xin Zhen; Laura Cerviño; Steve B Jiang; Xun Jia
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Investigation into image quality and dose for different patient geometries with multiple cone-beam CT systems.

Authors:  Stephen J Gardner; Matthew T Studenski; Tawfik Giaddui; Yunfeng Cui; James Galvin; Yan Yu; Ying Xiao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Evaluation of mechanical and geometric accuracy of two different image guidance systems in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Nithya Kanakavelu; Anand Mambakam Ravindran; Emmanvelrajan James Jebaseelan Samuel
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2016-01-04

6.  Impact of reduction of flux overlap region on kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography image quality and patients' exposure dose.

Authors:  Daisuke Kawahara; Shuichi Ozawa; Yuji Murakami; Takeo Nakashima; Masamichi Aita; Shintaro Tsuda; Yusuke Ochi; Takuro Okumura; Hirokazu Masuda; Yoshimi Ohno; Yasushi Nagata
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2016-05-16

Review 7.  Standardization of Small Animal Imaging-Current Status and Future Prospects.

Authors:  Julia G Mannheim; Firat Kara; Janine Doorduin; Kerstin Fuchs; Gerald Reischl; Sayuan Liang; Marleen Verhoye; Felix Gremse; Laura Mezzanotte; Marc C Huisman
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  Image quality and dose distributions of three linac-based imaging modalities.

Authors:  Yvonne Dzierma; Evemarie Ames; Frank Nuesken; Jan Palm; Norbert Licht; Christian Rübe
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 3.621

9.  Clinical evaluation of positioning verification using digital tomosynthesis and bony anatomy and soft tissues for prostate image-guided radiotherapy.

Authors:  Sua Yoo; Q Jackie Wu; Devon Godfrey; Hui Yan; Lei Ren; Shiva Das; William R Lee; Fang-Fang Yin
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Comparing digital tomosynthesis to cone-beam CT for position verification in patients undergoing partial breast irradiation.

Authors:  Junan Zhang; Q Jackie Wu; Devon J Godfrey; Toyosi Fatunase; Lawrence B Marks; Fang-Fang Yin
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 7.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.