Literature DB >> 30803367

Evaluation and Clinical Application of a Commercially Available Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm for CBCT-Based IGRT.

Weihua Mao1, Chang Liu1, Stephen J Gardner1, Farzan Siddiqui1, Karen C Snyder1, Akila Kumarasiri1, Bo Zhao1, Joshua Kim1, Ning Winston Wen1, Benjamin Movsas1, Indrin J Chetty1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We have quantitatively evaluated the image quality of a new commercially available iterative cone-beam computed tomography reconstruction algorithm over standard cone-beam computed tomography image reconstruction results.
METHODS: This iterative cone-beam computed tomography reconstruction pipeline uses a finite element solver (AcurosCTS)-based scatter correction and a statistical (iterative) reconstruction in addition to a standard kernel-based correction followed by filtered back-projection-based Feldkamp-Davis-Kress cone-beam computed tomography reconstruction. Standard full-fan half-rotation Head, half-fan full-rotation Head, and standard Pelvis cone-beam computed tomography protocols have been investigated to scan a quality assurance phantom via the following image quality metrics: uniformity, HU constancy, spatial resolution, low contrast detection, noise level, and contrast-to-noise ratio. An anthropomorphic head phantom was scanned for verification of noise reduction. Clinical patient image data sets for 5 head/neck patients and 5 prostate patients were qualitatively evaluated.
RESULTS: Quality assurance phantom study results showed that relative to filtered back-projection-based cone-beam computed tomography, noise was reduced from 28.8 ± 0.3 HU to a range between 18.3 ± 0.2 and 5.9 ± 0.2 HU for Full-Fan Head scans, from 14.4 ± 0.2 HU to a range between 12.8 ± 0.3 and 5.2 ± 0.3 HU for Half-Fan Head scans, and from 6.2 ± 0.1 HU to a range between 3.8 ± 0.1 and 2.0 ± 0.2 HU for Pelvis scans, with the iterative cone-beam computed tomography algorithm. Spatial resolution was marginally improved while results for uniformity and HU constancy were similar. For the head phantom study, noise was reduced from 43.6 HU to a range between 24.8 and 13.0 HU for a Full-Fan Head and from 35.1 HU to a range between 22.9 and 14.0 HU for a Half-Fan Head scan. The patient data study showed that artifacts due to photon starvation and streak artifacts were all reduced, and image noise in specified target regions were reduced to 62% ± 15% for 10 patients.
CONCLUSION: Noise and contrast-to-noise ratio image quality characteristics were significantly improved using the iterative cone-beam computed tomography reconstruction algorithm relative to the filtered back-projection-based cone-beam computed tomography method. These improvements will enhance the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography-based image-guided applications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CBCT; iterative reconstruction; low contrast detection; noise reduction; scatter correction

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30803367      PMCID: PMC6373994          DOI: 10.1177/1533033818823054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 1533-0338


  44 in total

1.  Variance reduction techniques for fast Monte Carlo CBCT scatter correction calculations.

Authors:  Ernesto Mainegra-Hing; Iwan Kawrakow
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  GPU-based fast cone beam CT reconstruction from undersampled and noisy projection data via total variation.

Authors:  Xun Jia; Yifei Lou; Ruijiang Li; William Y Song; Steve B Jiang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Characterization of scattered radiation in kV CBCT images using Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  Geneviève Jarry; Sean A Graham; Douglas J Moseley; David J Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Frank Verhaegen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Evaluation of on-board kV cone beam CT (CBCT)-based dose calculation.

Authors:  Yong Yang; Eduard Schreibmann; Tianfang Li; Chuang Wang; Lei Xing
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  GPU-based cone beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Peter B Noël; Alan M Walczak; Jinhui Xu; Jason J Corso; Kenneth R Hoffmann; Sebastian Schafer
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Evaluating the four-dimensional cone beam computed tomography with varying gantry rotation speed.

Authors:  S A Yoganathan; K J Maria Das; Shajahan Mohamed Ali; Arpita Agarwal; Surendra P Mishra; Shaleen Kumar
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Dosimetric feasibility of cone-beam CT-based treatment planning compared to CT-based treatment planning.

Authors:  Sua Yoo; Fang-Fang Yin
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2006-10-23       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Patient-specific scatter correction for flat-panel detector-based cone-beam CT imaging.

Authors:  Wei Zhao; Stephen Brunner; Kai Niu; Sebastian Schafer; Kevin Royalty; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  GPU accelerated voxel-driven forward projection for iterative reconstruction of cone-beam CT.

Authors:  Yi Du; Gongyi Yu; Xincheng Xiang; Xiangang Wang
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 2.819

10.  Investigation of the usability of conebeam CT data sets for dose calculation.

Authors:  Anne Richter; Qiaoqiao Hu; Doreen Steglich; Kurt Baier; Jürgen Wilbert; Matthias Guckenberger; Michael Flentje
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 3.481

View more
  2 in total

1.  Dose Reduction and Low-Contrast Detectability Using Iterative CBCT Reconstruction Algorithm for Radiotherapy.

Authors:  Hayate Washio; Shingo Ohira; Yoshinori Funama; Yoshihiro Ueda; Masahiro Morimoto; Naoyuki Kanayama; Masaru Isono; Shoki Inui; Yuya Nitta; Masayoshi Miyazaki; Teruki Teshima
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec

Review 2.  Adaptive Radiation Therapy (ART) Strategies and Technical Considerations: A State of the ART Review From NRG Oncology.

Authors:  Carri K Glide-Hurst; Percy Lee; Adam D Yock; Jeffrey R Olsen; Minsong Cao; Farzan Siddiqui; William Parker; Anthony Doemer; Yi Rong; Amar U Kishan; Stanley H Benedict; X Allen Li; Beth A Erickson; Jason W Sohn; Ying Xiao; Evan Wuthrick
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2020-10-24       Impact factor: 7.038

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.