PURPOSE: To demonstrate that a "5DCT" technique which utilizes fast helical acquisition yields the same respiratory-gated images as a commercial technique for regular, mechanically produced breathing cycles. METHODS: Respiratory-gated images of an anesthetized, mechanically ventilated pig were generated using a Siemens low-pitch helical protocol and 5DCT for a range of breathing rates and amplitudes and with standard and low dose imaging protocols. 5DCT reconstructions were independently evaluated by measuring the distances between tissue positions predicted by a 5D motion model and those measured using deformable registration, as well by reconstructing the originally acquired scans. Discrepancies between the 5DCT and commercial reconstructions were measured using landmark correspondences. RESULTS: The mean distance between model predicted tissue positions and deformably registered tissue positions over the nine datasets was 0.65 ± 0.28 mm. Reconstructions of the original scans were on average accurate to 0.78 ± 0.57 mm. Mean landmark displacement between the commercial and 5DCT images was 1.76 ± 1.25 mm while the maximum lung tissue motion over the breathing cycle had a mean value of 27.2 ± 4.6 mm. An image composed of the average of 30 deformably registered images acquired with a low dose protocol had 6 HU image noise (single standard deviation) in the heart versus 31 HU for the commercial images. CONCLUSIONS: An end to end evaluation of the 5DCT technique was conducted through landmark based comparison to breathing gated images acquired with a commercial protocol under highly regular ventilation. The techniques were found to agree to within 2 mm for most respiratory phases and most points in the lung.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate that a "5DCT" technique which utilizes fast helical acquisition yields the same respiratory-gated images as a commercial technique for regular, mechanically produced breathing cycles. METHODS: Respiratory-gated images of an anesthetized, mechanically ventilated pig were generated using a Siemens low-pitch helical protocol and 5DCT for a range of breathing rates and amplitudes and with standard and low dose imaging protocols. 5DCT reconstructions were independently evaluated by measuring the distances between tissue positions predicted by a 5D motion model and those measured using deformable registration, as well by reconstructing the originally acquired scans. Discrepancies between the 5DCT and commercial reconstructions were measured using landmark correspondences. RESULTS: The mean distance between model predicted tissue positions and deformably registered tissue positions over the nine datasets was 0.65 ± 0.28 mm. Reconstructions of the original scans were on average accurate to 0.78 ± 0.57 mm. Mean landmark displacement between the commercial and 5DCT images was 1.76 ± 1.25 mm while the maximum lung tissue motion over the breathing cycle had a mean value of 27.2 ± 4.6 mm. An image composed of the average of 30 deformably registered images acquired with a low dose protocol had 6 HU image noise (single standard deviation) in the heart versus 31 HU for the commercial images. CONCLUSIONS: An end to end evaluation of the 5DCT technique was conducted through landmark based comparison to breathing gated images acquired with a commercial protocol under highly regular ventilation. The techniques were found to agree to within 2 mm for most respiratory phases and most points in the lung.
Authors: Mattias P Heinrich; Mark Jenkinson; Manav Bhushan; Tahreema Matin; Fergus V Gleeson; Sir Michael Brady; Julia A Schnabel Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: K Murphy; B van Ginneken; S Klein; M Staring; B J de Hoop; M A Viergever; J P W Pluim Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: David Thomas; James Lamb; Benjamin White; Shyam Jani; Sergio Gaudio; Percy Lee; Dan Ruan; Michael McNitt-Gray; Daniel Low Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel A Low; Parag J Parikh; Wei Lu; James F Dempsey; Sasha H Wahab; James P Hubenschmidt; Michelle M Nystrom; Maureen Handoko; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul J Keall; Gig S Mageras; James M Balter; Richard S Emery; Kenneth M Forster; Steve B Jiang; Jeffrey M Kapatoes; Daniel A Low; Martin J Murphy; Brad R Murray; Chester R Ramsey; Marcel B Van Herk; S Sastry Vedam; John W Wong; Ellen Yorke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Daniel A Low; Benjamin M White; Percy P Lee; David H Thomas; Sergio Gaudio; Shyam S Jani; Xiao Wu; James M Lamb Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Emily Hammond; John D Newell; Samantha K N Dilger; Nicholas Stoyles; John Morgan; Jered P Sieren; Daniel R Thedens; Eric A Hoffman; David K Meyerholz; Jessica C Sieren Journal: Toxicol Pathol Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 1.902