SPARE: Sparse-view reconstruction challenge for 4D cone-beam CT from a 1-min scan.
4D-CBCT
grand challenge
image reconstruction
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
17
12
2018
revised:
22
04
2019
accepted:
11
06
2019
pubmed:
28
6
2019
medline:
25
1
2020
entrez:
28
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Currently, four-dimensional (4D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) requires a 3-4 min full-fan scan to ensure usable image quality. Recent advancements in sparse-view 4D-CBCT reconstruction have opened the possibility to reduce scan time and dose. The aim of this study is to provide a common framework for systematically evaluating algorithms for 4D-CBCT reconstruction from a 1-min scan. Using this framework, the AAPM-sponsored SPARE Challenge was conducted in 2018 to identify and compare state-of-the-art algorithms. A clinically realistic CBCT dataset was simulated using patient CT volumes from the 4D-Lung database. The selected patients had multiple 4D-CT sessions, where the first 4D-CT was used as the prior CT, and the rest were used as the ground truth volumes for simulating CBCT projections. A GPU-based Monte Carlo tool was used to simulate the primary, scatter, and quantum noise signals. A total of 32 CBCT scans of nine patients were generated. Additional qualitative analysis was performed on a clinical Varian and clinical Elekta dataset to validate the simulation study. Participants were blinded from the ground truth, and were given 3 months to apply their reconstruction algorithms to the projection data. The submitted reconstructions were analyzed in terms of root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) and structural similarity index (SSIM) with the ground truth within four different region-of-interests (ROI) - patient body, lungs, planning target volume (PTV), and bony anatomy. Geometric accuracy was quantified as the alignment error of the PTV. Twenty teams participated in the challenge, with five teams completing the challenge. Techniques involved in the five methods included iterative optimization, motion-compensation, and deformation of the prior 4D-CT. All five methods rendered significant reduction in noise and streaking artifacts when compared to the conventional Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) algorithm. The RMS of the three-dimensional (3D) target registration error of the five methods ranged from 1.79 to 3.00 mm. Qualitative observations from the Varian and Elekta datasets mostly concur with those from the simulation dataset. Each of the methods was found to have its own strengths and weaknesses. Overall, the MA-ROOSTER method, which utilizes a 4D-CT motion model for temporal regularization, had the best and most consistent image quality and accuracy. The SPARE Challenge represents the first framework for systematically evaluating state-of-the-art algorithms for 4D-CBCT reconstruction from a 1-min scan. Results suggest the potential for reducing scan time and dose for 4D-CBCT. The challenge dataset and analysis framework are publicly available for benchmarking future reconstruction algorithms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31247134
doi: 10.1002/mp.13687
pmc: PMC6739166
mid: NIHMS1040042
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3799-3811Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : APP1120333
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Australian Government National Health
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01-CA184173
Pays : United States
Organisme : Senior Principal Research Fellowship
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA184173
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA166119
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01CA166119
Pays : United States
Organisme : Cancer Institute New South Wales
ID : CS00481
Informations de copyright
© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Med Phys. 2009 Dec;36(12):5695-706
pubmed: 20095282
Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6943-6
pubmed: 23127087
Med Phys. 2012 Dec;39(12):7368-78
pubmed: 23231286
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1981 Feb;28(2):123-7
pubmed: 7287019
Med Phys. 2013 Sep;40(9):091909
pubmed: 24007160
Med Phys. 2013 Oct;40(10):101912
pubmed: 24089914
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010 Jan;29(1):196-205
pubmed: 19923044
Med Phys. 2013 Dec;40(12):121710
pubmed: 24320496
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Feb 7;59(3):579-95
pubmed: 24434622
Med Phys. 2007 Sep;34(9):3520-9
pubmed: 17926955
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):1566-72
pubmed: 22391105
Med Phys. 2013 Oct;40(10):101913
pubmed: 24089915
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Sep 7;53(17):4777-807
pubmed: 18701771
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018 Mar 08;5:69-75
pubmed: 33458372
Med Phys. 2009 Jun;36(6):2283-96
pubmed: 19610317
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Jan 21;58(2):231-46
pubmed: 23257113
Med Phys. 2019 Sep;46(9):3799-3811
pubmed: 31247134
J Radiat Res. 2013 Jan;54(1):152-6
pubmed: 22843380
Med Phys. 2008 Feb;35(2):660-3
pubmed: 18383687
Radiat Oncol. 2012 Jun 08;7:81
pubmed: 22682767
Med Phys. 2013 Apr;40(4):041901
pubmed: 23556895
Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):1176-86
pubmed: 15895601
Med Phys. 2010 Sep;37(9):5044-53
pubmed: 20964224
Med Phys. 2008 Jul;35(7):3110-5
pubmed: 18697536
Med Phys. 2007 Sep;34(9):3688-95
pubmed: 17926972
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Sep 21;61(18):6856-6877
pubmed: 27588815
Med Phys. 2014 Feb;41(2):020701
pubmed: 24506590
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2004 Apr;13(4):600-12
pubmed: 15376593
Med Phys. 2012 Sep;39(9):5683-96
pubmed: 22957634
Med Phys. 2017 Feb;44(2):762-771
pubmed: 27991677
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Apr 21;62(8):3313-3329
pubmed: 28211367
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2013 Aug;32(8):1365-75
pubmed: 23247845
Med Phys. 2012 Sep;39(9):5592-602
pubmed: 22957625
Med Phys. 2008 Oct;35(10):4649-59
pubmed: 18975711
Med Phys. 2018 Oct;45(10):4471-4482
pubmed: 30118177