Cargando…
Improving Image Quality of On-Board Cone-Beam CT in Radiation Therapy Using Image Information Provided by Planning Multi-Detector CT: A Phantom Study
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to improve the image quality of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) mounted on the gantry of a linear accelerator used in radiation therapy based on the image information provided by planning multi-detector CT (MDCT). METHODS: MDCT-based shading correction for CBC...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4900643/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27280593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157072 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to improve the image quality of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) mounted on the gantry of a linear accelerator used in radiation therapy based on the image information provided by planning multi-detector CT (MDCT). METHODS: MDCT-based shading correction for CBCT and virtual monochromatic CT (VMCT) synthesized using the dual-energy method were performed. In VMCT, the high-energy data were obtained from CBCT, while the low-energy data were obtained from MDCT. An electron density phantom was used to investigate the efficacy of shading correction and VMCT on improving the target detectability, Hounsfield unit (HU) accuracy and variation, which were quantified by calculating the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the percent difference (%Diff) and the standard deviation of the CT numbers for tissue equivalent background material, respectively. Treatment plan studies for a chest phantom were conducted to investigate the effects of image quality improvement on dose planning. RESULTS: For the electron density phantom, the mean value of CNR was 17.84, 26.78 and 34.31 in CBCT, shading-corrected CBCT and VMCT, respectively. The mean value of %Diff was 152.67%, 11.93% and 7.66% in CBCT, shading-corrected CBCT and VMCT, respectively. The standard deviation within a uniform background of CBCT, shading-corrected CBCT and VMCT was 85, 23 and 15 HU, respectively. With regards to the chest phantom, the monitor unit (MU) difference between the treatment plan calculated using MDCT and those based on CBCT, shading corrected CBCT and VMCT was 6.32%, 1.05% and 0.94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Enhancement of image quality in on-board CBCT can contribute to daily patient setup and adaptive dose delivery, thus enabling higher confidence in patient treatment accuracy in radiation therapy. Based on our results, VMCT has the highest image quality, followed by the shading corrected CBCT and the original CBCT. The research results presented in this study should be able to provide a route to reach a high level of image quality for CBCT imaging in radiation oncology. |
---|