Literature DB >> 28410679

Dual-energy imaging method to improve the image quality and the accuracy of dose calculation for cone-beam computed tomography.

Kuo Men1, Jianrong Dai2, Xinyuan Chen1, Minghui Li1, Ke Zhang1, Peng Huang1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To improve the image quality and accuracy of dose calculation for cone-beam computed tomography (CT) images through implementation of a dual-energy cone-beam computed tomography method (DE-CBCT), and evaluate the improvement quantitatively.
METHODS: Two sets of CBCT projections were acquired using the X-ray volumetric imaging (XVI) system on a Synergy (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) system with 120kV (high) and 70kV (low) X-rays, respectively. Then, the electron density relative to water (relative electron density (RED)) of each voxel was calculated using a projection-based dual-energy decomposition method. As a comparison, single-energy cone-beam computed tomography (SE-CBCT) was used to calculate RED with the Hounsfield unit-RED calibration curve generated by a CIRS phantom scan with identical imaging parameters. The imaging dose was measured with a dosimetry phantom. The image quality was evaluated quantitatively using a Catphan 503 phantom with the evaluation indices of the reproducibility of the RED values, high-contrast resolution (MTF50%), uniformity, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Dose calculation of two simulated volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans using an Eclipse treatment-planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was performed on an Alderson Rando Head and Neck (H&N) phantom and a Pelvis phantom. Fan-beam planning CT images for the H&N and Pelvis phantom were set as the reference. A global three-dimensional gamma analysis was used to compare dose distributions with the reference. The average gamma values for targets and OAR were analyzed with paired t-tests between DE-CBCT and SE-CBCT.
RESULTS: In two scans (H&amp;N scan and body scan), the imaging dose of DE-CBCT increased by 1.0% and decreased by 1.3%. It had a better reproducibility of the RED values (mean bias: 0.03 and 0.07) compared with SE-CBCT (mean bias: 0.13 and 0.16). It also improved the image uniformity (57.5% and 30.1%) and SNR (9.7% and 2.3%), but did not affect the MTF50%. Gamma analyses of the 3D dose distribution with criteria of 1%/1mm showed a pass rate of 99.0-100% and 85.3-97.6% for DE-CBCT and 73.5-99.1% and 80.4-92.7% for SE-CBCT. The average gamma values were reduced significantly by DE-CBCT (p< 0.05). Gamma index maps showed that matching of the dose distribution between CBCT-based and reference was improved by DE-CBCT.
CONCLUSIONS: DE-CBCT can achieve both better image quality and higher accuracy of dose calculation, and could be applied to adaptive radiotherapy.
Copyright © 2017 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adaptive radiotherapy; CBCT; Dose calculation; Dual-energy imaging; Image quality

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28410679     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med        ISSN: 1120-1797            Impact factor:   2.685


  3 in total

1.  Characterization and potential applications of a dual-layer flat-panel detector.

Authors:  Linxi Shi; Minghui Lu; N Robert Bennett; Edward Shapiro; Jin Zhang; Richard Colbeth; Josh Star-Lack; Adam S Wang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Study of Variation in Dose Calculation Accuracy Between kV Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and kV fan-Beam Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal; C Jomon Raphael; K Mathew Varghese; Paul Gopu; S Sivakumar; Minu Boban; N Arunai Nambi Raj; K Senthilnathan; P Ramesh Babu
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

3.  Online daily assessment of dose change in head and neck radiotherapy without dose-recalculation.

Authors:  Jason R Vickress; Jerry Battista; Rob Barnett; Slav Yartsev
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-08-07       Impact factor: 2.102

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.