Literature DB >> 20435466

Implications of artefacts reduction in the planning CT originating from implanted fiducial markers.

Iskandar Kassim1, Hans Joosten, Jaco C Barnhoorn, Ben J M Heijmen, Maarten L P Dirkx.   

Abstract

The efficacy of metal artefact reduction (MAR) software to suppress artefacts in reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images originating from small metal objects, like tumor markers and surgical clips, was evaluated. In addition, possible implications of using digital reconstructed radiographs (DRRs), based on the MAR CT images, for setup verification were analyzed. A phantom and 15 patients with different tumor sites and implanted markers were imaged with a multislice CT scanner. The raw image data was reconstructed both with the clinically used filtered-backprojection (FBP) and with the MAR software. Using the MAR software, improvements in image quality were often observed in CT slices with markers or clips. Especially when several markers were located near to each other, fewer streak artefacts were observed than with the FBP algorithm. In addition, the shape and size of markers could be identified more accurately, reducing the contoured marker volumes by a factor of 2. For the phantom study, the CT numbers measured near to the markers corresponded more closely to the expected values. However, the MAR images were slightly more smoothed compared with the images reconstructed with FBP. For 8 prostate cancer patients in this study, the interobserver variation in 3D marker definition was similar (<0.4 mm) when using DRRs based on either FBP or MAR CT scans. Automatic marker matches also showed a similar success rate. However, differences in automatic match results up to 1 mm, caused by differences in the marker definition, were observed, which turned out to be (borderline) statistically significant (p = 0.06) for 2 patients. In conclusion, the MAR software might improve image quality by suppressing metal artefacts, probably allowing for a more reliable delineation of structures. When implanted markers or clips are used for setup verification, the accuracy may slightly be improved as well, which is relevant when using very tight clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins for planning.
Copyright © 2011 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20435466     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  6 in total

Review 1.  Computed tomography imaging parameters for inhomogeneity correction in radiation treatment planning.

Authors:  Indra J Das; Chee-Wai Cheng; Minsong Cao; Peter A S Johnstone
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

2.  Fiducial markers visibility and artefacts in prostate cancer radiotherapy multi-modality imaging.

Authors:  Sarah O S Osman; Emily Russell; Raymond B King; Karen Crowther; Suneil Jain; Cormac McGrath; Alan R Hounsell; Kevin M Prise; Conor K McGarry
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 3.481

3.  Evaluation of a metal artifact reduction algorithm in CT studies used for proton radiotherapy treatment planning.

Authors:  Karin M Andersson; Anders Ahnesjö; Christina Vallhagen Dahlgren
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Determination of optimal fiducial marker across image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) modalities: visibility and artifact analysis of gold, carbon, and polymer fiducial markers.

Authors:  Lydia L Handsfield; Ning J Yue; Jinghao Zhou; Ting Chen; Sharad Goyal
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Using C-Arm X-ray images from marker insertion to confirm the gold fiducial marker identification in an MRI-only prostate radiotherapy workflow.

Authors:  Christian Gustafsson; Emilia Persson; Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Lars E Olsson
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Positioning errors of metal localization devices with motion artifacts on kV and MV cone beam CT.

Authors:  Teh Lin; Chang-Ming Charlie Ma
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2019-03-15
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.