OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the four-dimensional cone beam CT (4DCBCT) imaging with different gantry rotation speed. METHODS: All the 4DCBCT image acquisitions were carried out in Elekta XVI Symmetry™ system (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). A dynamic thorax phantom with tumour mimicking inserts of diameter 1, 2 and 3 cm was programmed to simulate the respiratory motion (4 s) of the target. 4DCBCT images were acquired with different gantry rotation speeds (36°, 50°, 75°, 100°, 150° and 200° min(-1)). Owing to the technical limitation of 4DCBCT system, average cone beam CT (CBCT) images derived from the 10 phases of 4DCBCT were used for the internal target volume (ITV) contouring. ITVs obtained from average CBCT were compared with the four-dimensional CT (4DCT). In addition, the image quality of 4DCBCT was also evaluated for various gantry rotation speeds using Catphan(®) 600 (The Phantom Laboratory Inc., Salem, NY). RESULTS: Compared to 4DCT, the average CBCT underestimated the ITV. The ITV deviation increased with increasing gantry speed (-10.8% vs -17.8% for 36° and 200° min(-1) in 3-cm target) and decreasing target size (-17.8% vs -26.8% for target diameter 3 and 1 cm in 200° min(-1)). Similarly, the image quality indicators such as spatial resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio and uniformity also degraded with increasing gantry rotation speed. CONCLUSION: The impact of gantry rotation speed has to be considered when using 4DCBCT for ITV definition. The phantom study demonstrated that 4DCBCT with slow gantry rotation showed better image quality and less ITV deviation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Usually, the gantry rotation period of Elekta 4DCBCT system is kept constant at 4 min (50° min(-1)) for acquisition, and any attempt of decreasing/increasing the acquisition duration requires careful investigation. In this study, the 4DCBCT images with different gantry rotation speed were evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the four-dimensional cone beam CT (4DCBCT) imaging with different gantry rotation speed. METHODS: All the 4DCBCT image acquisitions were carried out in Elekta XVI Symmetry™ system (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). A dynamic thorax phantom with tumour mimicking inserts of diameter 1, 2 and 3 cm was programmed to simulate the respiratory motion (4 s) of the target. 4DCBCT images were acquired with different gantry rotation speeds (36°, 50°, 75°, 100°, 150° and 200° min(-1)). Owing to the technical limitation of 4DCBCT system, average cone beam CT (CBCT) images derived from the 10 phases of 4DCBCT were used for the internal target volume (ITV) contouring. ITVs obtained from average CBCT were compared with the four-dimensional CT (4DCT). In addition, the image quality of 4DCBCT was also evaluated for various gantry rotation speeds using Catphan(®) 600 (The Phantom Laboratory Inc., Salem, NY). RESULTS: Compared to 4DCT, the average CBCT underestimated the ITV. The ITV deviation increased with increasing gantry speed (-10.8% vs -17.8% for 36° and 200° min(-1) in 3-cm target) and decreasing target size (-17.8% vs -26.8% for target diameter 3 and 1 cm in 200° min(-1)). Similarly, the image quality indicators such as spatial resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio and uniformity also degraded with increasing gantry rotation speed. CONCLUSION: The impact of gantry rotation speed has to be considered when using 4DCBCT for ITV definition. The phantom study demonstrated that 4DCBCT with slow gantry rotation showed better image quality and less ITV deviation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Usually, the gantry rotation period of Elekta 4DCBCT system is kept constant at 4 min (50° min(-1)) for acquisition, and any attempt of decreasing/increasing the acquisition duration requires careful investigation. In this study, the 4DCBCT images with different gantry rotation speed were evaluated.
Authors: J W Wong; M B Sharpe; D A Jaffray; V R Kini; J M Robertson; J S Stromberg; A A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jun Lu; Thomas M Guerrero; Peter Munro; Andrew Jeung; Pai-Chun M Chi; Peter Balter; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan; Tinsu Pan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Martina Descovich; Christopher McGuinness; Danita Kannarunimit; Josephine Chen; Dilini Pinnaduwage; Jean Pouliot; Norbert Kased; Alexander R Gottschalk; Sue S Yom Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Inga S Grills; Geoffrey Hugo; Larry L Kestin; Ana Paula Galerani; K Kenneth Chao; Jennifer Wloch; Di Yan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-10-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K Ohara; T Okumura; M Akisada; T Inada; T Mori; H Yokota; M J Calaguas Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1989-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Weihua Mao; Chang Liu; Stephen J Gardner; Farzan Siddiqui; Karen C Snyder; Akila Kumarasiri; Bo Zhao; Joshua Kim; Ning Winston Wen; Benjamin Movsas; Indrin J Chetty Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-01