Payel Ghosh1, Adam G Chandler, Emre Altinmakas, John Rong, Chaan S Ng. 1. From the *Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX; †GE Healthcare MICT Research, Waukesha, WI; and ‡Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of shuttle-mode computed tomography (CT) technology for body perfusion applications by quantitatively assessing and correcting motion artifacts. METHODS: Noncontrast shuttle-mode CT scans (10 phases, 2 nonoverlapping bed locations) were acquired from 4 patients on a GE 750HD CT scanner. Shuttling effects were quantified using Euclidean distances (between-phase and between-bed locations) of corresponding fiducial points on the shuttle and reference phase scans (prior to shuttle mode). Motion correction with nonrigid registration was evaluated using sum-of-squares differences and distances between centers of segmented volumes of interest on shuttle and references images. RESULTS: Fiducial point analysis showed an average shuttling motion of 0.85 ± 1.05 mm (between-bed) and 1.18 ± 1.46 mm (between-phase), respectively. The volume-of-interest analysis of the nonrigid registration results showed improved sum-of-squares differences from 2950 to 597, between-bed distance from 1.64 to 1.20 mm, and between-phase distance from 2.64 to 1.33 mm, respectively, averaged over all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Shuttling effects introduced during shuttle-mode CT acquisitions can be computationally corrected for body perfusion applications.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of shuttle-mode computed tomography (CT) technology for body perfusion applications by quantitatively assessing and correcting motion artifacts. METHODS: Noncontrast shuttle-mode CT scans (10 phases, 2 nonoverlapping bed locations) were acquired from 4 patients on a GE 750HD CT scanner. Shuttling effects were quantified using Euclidean distances (between-phase and between-bed locations) of corresponding fiducial points on the shuttle and reference phase scans (prior to shuttle mode). Motion correction with nonrigid registration was evaluated using sum-of-squares differences and distances between centers of segmented volumes of interest on shuttle and references images. RESULTS: Fiducial point analysis showed an average shuttling motion of 0.85 ± 1.05 mm (between-bed) and 1.18 ± 1.46 mm (between-phase), respectively. The volume-of-interest analysis of the nonrigid registration results showed improved sum-of-squares differences from 2950 to 597, between-bed distance from 1.64 to 1.20 mm, and between-phase distance from 2.64 to 1.33 mm, respectively, averaged over all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Shuttling effects introduced during shuttle-mode CT acquisitions can be computationally corrected for body perfusion applications.
Authors: Payel Ghosh; Adam G Chandler; Brian P Hobbs; Jia Sun; John Rong; David Hong; Vivek Subbiah; Filip Janku; Aung Naing; Wen-Jen Hwu; Chaan S Ng Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.826