Lotte E J R Schyns1, Isabel P Almeida1, Stefan J van Hoof1, Benedicte Descamps2, Christian Vanhove2, Guillaume Landry3, Patrick V Granton1, Frank Verhaegen1,4. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands. 2. 2 iMinds Medical IT-IBiTech-MEDISIP-INFINITY, De Pintelaan 185, Ghent, Belgium. 3. 3 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Munich, Germany. 4. 4 Medical Physics Unit, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to investigate whether quantitative dual-energy CT (DECT) imaging is feasible for small animal irradiators with an integrated cone-beam CT (CBCT) system. METHODS: The optimal imaging protocols were determined by analyzing different energy combinations and dose levels. The influence of beam hardening effects and the performance of a beam hardening correction (BHC) were investigated. In addition, two systems from different manufacturers were compared in terms of errors in the extracted effective atomic numbers (Zeff) and relative electron densities (ρe) for phantom inserts with known elemental compositions and relative electron densities. RESULTS: The optimal energy combination was determined to be 50 and 90 kVp. For this combination, Zeff and ρe can be extracted with a mean error of 0.11 and 0.010, respectively, at a dose level of 60 cGy. CONCLUSION: Quantitative DECT imaging is feasible for small animal irradiators with an integrated CBCT system. To obtain the best results, optimizing the imaging protocols is required. Well-separated X-ray spectra and a sufficient dose level should be used to minimize the error and noise for Zeff and ρe. When no BHC is applied in the image reconstruction, the size of the calibration phantom should match the size of the imaged object to limit the influence of beam hardening effects. No significant differences in Zeff and ρe errors are observed between the two systems from different manufacturers. Advances in knowledge: This is the first study that investigates quantitative DECT imaging for small animal irradiators with an integrated CBCT system.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to investigate whether quantitative dual-energy CT (DECT) imaging is feasible for small animal irradiators with an integrated cone-beam CT (CBCT) system. METHODS: The optimal imaging protocols were determined by analyzing different energy combinations and dose levels. The influence of beam hardening effects and the performance of a beam hardening correction (BHC) were investigated. In addition, two systems from different manufacturers were compared in terms of errors in the extracted effective atomic numbers (Zeff) and relative electron densities (ρe) for phantom inserts with known elemental compositions and relative electron densities. RESULTS: The optimal energy combination was determined to be 50 and 90 kVp. For this combination, Zeff and ρe can be extracted with a mean error of 0.11 and 0.010, respectively, at a dose level of 60 cGy. CONCLUSION: Quantitative DECT imaging is feasible for small animal irradiators with an integrated CBCT system. To obtain the best results, optimizing the imaging protocols is required. Well-separated X-ray spectra and a sufficient dose level should be used to minimize the error and noise for Zeff and ρe. When no BHC is applied in the image reconstruction, the size of the calibration phantom should match the size of the imaged object to limit the influence of beam hardening effects. No significant differences in Zeff and ρe errors are observed between the two systems from different manufacturers. Advances in knowledge: This is the first study that investigates quantitative DECT imaging for small animal irradiators with an integrated CBCT system.
Authors: Guillaume Landry; Brigitte Reniers; Patrick Vincent Granton; Bart van Rooijen; Luc Beaulieu; Joachim E Wildberger; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: P Workman; E O Aboagye; F Balkwill; A Balmain; G Bruder; D J Chaplin; J A Double; J Everitt; D A H Farningham; M J Glennie; L R Kelland; V Robinson; I J Stratford; G M Tozer; S Watson; S R Wedge; S A Eccles Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Everett J Moding; Darin P Clark; Yi Qi; Yifan Li; Yan Ma; Ketan Ghaghada; G Allan Johnson; David G Kirsch; Cristian T Badea Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John Wong; Elwood Armour; Peter Kazanzides; Iulian Iordachita; Erik Tryggestad; Hua Deng; Mohammad Matinfar; Christopher Kennedy; Zejian Liu; Timothy Chan; Owen Gray; Frank Verhaegen; Todd McNutt; Eric Ford; Theodore L DeWeese Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lotte Ejr Schyns; Daniëlle Bp Eekers; Brent van der Heyden; Isabel P Almeida; Ana Vaniqui; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ana Vaniqui; Lotte E J R Schyns; Isabel P Almeida; Brent van der Heyden; Mark Podesta; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Mihaela Ghita; Victoria Dunne; Gerard G Hanna; Kevin M Prise; Jaqueline P Williams; Karl T Butterworth Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Kathryn H Brown; Mihaela Ghita; Ludwig J Dubois; Dirk de Ruysscher; Kevin M Prise; Frank Verhaegen; Karl T Butterworth Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04-06
Authors: Ana Vaniqui; Lotte E J R Schyns; Isabel P Almeida; Brent van der Heyden; Stefan J van Hoof; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 3.481