Cargando…

Optimal acquisition parameter selection for CT simulators in radiation oncology

The purpose of this study was to identify optimal CT acquisition parameter settings for each make and model of scanners used in a large Radiation Oncology (RO) Department, considering the special requirements of CT simulation. Two CT phantoms were used to evaluate the image quality of the five diffe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Ruijie Rachel, Prado, Karl L, Cody, Dianna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722357/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19020491
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v9i4.2878
Descripción
Sumario:The purpose of this study was to identify optimal CT acquisition parameter settings for each make and model of scanners used in a large Radiation Oncology (RO) Department, considering the special requirements of CT simulation. Two CT phantoms were used to evaluate the image quality of the five different multichannel CT scanners using helical scan mode. We compared the effects of various pitch, detector configurations, and rotation time parameters on image artifacts, and on spatial and contrast resolution. We found that helical artifact was closely related to pitch and detector configuration settings. This artifact was scanner‐specific and generally more obvious when the channel width or detector collimation was equal to the image thickness. Different acquisition parameter settings produced slight differences in observed high‐ and low‐contrast resolution. Short rotation time degraded image quality for certain scanners, but only slightly, while other rotation times, such as 0.75 sec/rotation and above, had no obvious effect on resolution. An optimized combination of acquisition parameters was determined for each scanner make and model, based on phantom image quality and other considerations for clinical applications. This information may be directly useful for physicists whose CT simulation scanners match one of the five examined in this study. If not, the strategy reported here may be used as a guide to perform a similar evaluation of the scanner. PACS numbers: 87.57.Ce, 87.57.qp, 87.55.Gh, 87.57.C‐