Task-Based Image Quality Assessment Comparing Classical and Iterative Cone Beam CT Images on Halcyon

Cone Beam CT image quality iterative reconstruction radiotherapy task-based image quality assessment

Journal

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Jan 2023
Historique:
received: 12 12 2022
revised: 10 01 2023
accepted: 14 01 2023
entrez: 11 2 2023
pubmed: 12 2 2023
medline: 12 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite the development of iterative reconstruction (IR) in diagnostic imaging, CBCT are generally reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) in radiotherapy. Varian medical systems, recently released with their latest Halcyon To assess the image quality of radiotherapy CBCT images reconstructed with FBP and an IR algorithm. Three CBCT acquisition modes (head, thorax and pelvis large) available on a Halcyon The noise magnitude and the spatial frequency of the NPS peak was lower with IR than with FBP for all modes. For all low and high-contrast inserts, the values for TTF at 50% were higher with IR than with FBP. For all inserts and all modes, the contrast values were similar with FBP and IR. For all low and high-contrast simulated lesions, d' values were higher with IR than with FBP for all modes. These results were also found on the 6 patients where the images were less noisy but smoother with IR-CBCT. Using the IR algorithm for CBCT images in radiotherapy improve image quality and thus could increase the accuracy of online registration and limit positioning errors during processing.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite the development of iterative reconstruction (IR) in diagnostic imaging, CBCT are generally reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) in radiotherapy. Varian medical systems, recently released with their latest Halcyon
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To assess the image quality of radiotherapy CBCT images reconstructed with FBP and an IR algorithm.
METHODS METHODS
Three CBCT acquisition modes (head, thorax and pelvis large) available on a Halcyon
RESULTS RESULTS
The noise magnitude and the spatial frequency of the NPS peak was lower with IR than with FBP for all modes. For all low and high-contrast inserts, the values for TTF at 50% were higher with IR than with FBP. For all inserts and all modes, the contrast values were similar with FBP and IR. For all low and high-contrast simulated lesions, d' values were higher with IR than with FBP for all modes. These results were also found on the 6 patients where the images were less noisy but smoother with IR-CBCT.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Using the IR algorithm for CBCT images in radiotherapy improve image quality and thus could increase the accuracy of online registration and limit positioning errors during processing.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36766553
pii: diagnostics13030448
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13030448
pmc: PMC9914039
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Eur Radiol. 2020 Feb;30(2):1075-1078
pubmed: 31506818
Opt Express. 2003 Mar 10;11(5):460-75
pubmed: 19461753
Phys Med. 2015 Dec;31(8):823-843
pubmed: 26459319
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Sep;85(9):1637-44
pubmed: 27501900
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jan;30(1):487-500
pubmed: 31359122
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018 May;99(5):311-320
pubmed: 29396085
Radiology. 2015 Jun;275(3):725-34
pubmed: 25686365
Med Phys. 2022 Aug;49(8):5052-5063
pubmed: 35696272
Radiology. 2018 Jul;288(1):285-292
pubmed: 29634436
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Mar 15;109(4):1054-1075
pubmed: 33470210
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Mar;41(3):217-23
pubmed: 22378754
Med Phys. 2011 Aug;38(8):4700-13
pubmed: 21928644
Eur Radiol. 2012 Aug;22(8):1613-23
pubmed: 22538629
Eur Radiol. 2023 Jan;33(1):699-710
pubmed: 35864348
Med Phys. 2015 Jan;42(1):314-23
pubmed: 25563271
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Dec;81(12):4185-95
pubmed: 22883532
Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jan 05;1:1-7
pubmed: 32095536
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022 Nov;103(11):555-562
pubmed: 35792006
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;5(6):440-5
pubmed: 26759795
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2023 Feb;104(2):76-83
pubmed: 36100524
Med Phys. 2008 Apr;35(4):1191-8
pubmed: 18491510
Med Phys. 2012 Jul;39(7):4115-22
pubmed: 22830744
Med Phys. 2021 Oct;48(10):5743-5755
pubmed: 34418110
Phys Med. 2020 Aug;76:28-37
pubmed: 32574999
Med Phys. 2019 Nov;46(11):e735-e756
pubmed: 31408540
Med Phys. 2011 Apr;38(4):1754-68
pubmed: 21626910

Auteurs

Marion Lassot-Buys (M)

Department of Oncology Radiotherapy, Nîmes University Hospital, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Bd Prof Robert Debré CEDEX 9, 30029 Nîmes, France.
Medical Physics Unit, Nîmes University Hospital, Bd Prof Robert Debré, CEDEX 9, 30029 Nîmes, France.

Rodolfe Verstraet (R)

Department of Oncology Radiotherapy, Nîmes University Hospital, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Bd Prof Robert Debré CEDEX 9, 30029 Nîmes, France.
Medical Physics Unit, Nîmes University Hospital, Bd Prof Robert Debré, CEDEX 9, 30029 Nîmes, France.

Djamel Dabli (D)

Medical Physics Unit, Nîmes University Hospital, Bd Prof Robert Debré, CEDEX 9, 30029 Nîmes, France.
Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, 30029 Nîmes, France.

Gilles Moliner (G)

Department of Oncology Radiotherapy, Nîmes University Hospital, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Bd Prof Robert Debré CEDEX 9, 30029 Nîmes, France.
Medical Physics Unit, Nîmes University Hospital, Bd Prof Robert Debré, CEDEX 9, 30029 Nîmes, France.
Cancer Institute of Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34090 Montpellier, France.

Joël Greffier (J)

Medical Physics Unit, Nîmes University Hospital, Bd Prof Robert Debré, CEDEX 9, 30029 Nîmes, France.
Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, 30029 Nîmes, France.

Classifications MeSH