Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners

Today, radiation therapy (RT) is moving toward increased radiation dose to the tumor as a result of 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) and intensity‐modulated RT (IMRT), which have been made possible by advances in volumetric‐based image planning with digital imaging systems such as computed tomography (CT). T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCann, Claire, Alasti, Hamideh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5723516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738921
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v5i4.1978
_version_ 1783285230037106688
author McCann, Claire
Alasti, Hamideh
author_facet McCann, Claire
Alasti, Hamideh
author_sort McCann, Claire
collection PubMed
description Today, radiation therapy (RT) is moving toward increased radiation dose to the tumor as a result of 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) and intensity‐modulated RT (IMRT), which have been made possible by advances in volumetric‐based image planning with digital imaging systems such as computed tomography (CT). Treatment planning for such RT requires superior CT image quality. Our goal in this study was to evaluate and to compare the image quality of three unique CT simulation scanners available at our center for both single‐ and multiple‐slice helical scanners. These scanners included a conventional 70‐cm bore single‐slice scanner (Philips Medical Systems), a large 85‐cm bore single‐slice scanner (Philips Medical Systems), and a 70‐cm bore multislice scanner (GE Medical Systems). Image quality was evaluated in terms of image noise, low‐contrast detectability (LCD), limiting spatial resolution (modulation transfer function), and slice thickness accuracy in accordance with guidelines set out by the AAPM. A commercially available Catphan® phantom was used to characterize image quality for both axial and helical modes of scanning. We found that image quality was generally comparable for all scanners. Limiting spatial resolution and slice thickness accuracy were comparable for all three scanners for both scanning modes. The multislice unit was superior in terms of noise content, resulting in improved visualization of small, low‐contrast objects, which is of significant clinical importance, particularly for soft tissue delineation. In addition, the multislice unit optimizes volume coverage speed and longitudinal resolution without compromising image quality, a significant advantage for the radiation oncology environment. PACS numbers: 87.57.Ce, 87.59.Fm, 87.57.Nk
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5723516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57235162018-04-02 Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners McCann, Claire Alasti, Hamideh J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Today, radiation therapy (RT) is moving toward increased radiation dose to the tumor as a result of 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) and intensity‐modulated RT (IMRT), which have been made possible by advances in volumetric‐based image planning with digital imaging systems such as computed tomography (CT). Treatment planning for such RT requires superior CT image quality. Our goal in this study was to evaluate and to compare the image quality of three unique CT simulation scanners available at our center for both single‐ and multiple‐slice helical scanners. These scanners included a conventional 70‐cm bore single‐slice scanner (Philips Medical Systems), a large 85‐cm bore single‐slice scanner (Philips Medical Systems), and a 70‐cm bore multislice scanner (GE Medical Systems). Image quality was evaluated in terms of image noise, low‐contrast detectability (LCD), limiting spatial resolution (modulation transfer function), and slice thickness accuracy in accordance with guidelines set out by the AAPM. A commercially available Catphan® phantom was used to characterize image quality for both axial and helical modes of scanning. We found that image quality was generally comparable for all scanners. Limiting spatial resolution and slice thickness accuracy were comparable for all three scanners for both scanning modes. The multislice unit was superior in terms of noise content, resulting in improved visualization of small, low‐contrast objects, which is of significant clinical importance, particularly for soft tissue delineation. In addition, the multislice unit optimizes volume coverage speed and longitudinal resolution without compromising image quality, a significant advantage for the radiation oncology environment. PACS numbers: 87.57.Ce, 87.59.Fm, 87.57.Nk John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2004-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5723516/ /pubmed/15738921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v5i4.1978 Text en © 2004 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
McCann, Claire
Alasti, Hamideh
Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners
title Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners
title_full Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners
title_short Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners
title_sort comparative evaluation of image quality from three ct simulation scanners
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5723516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738921
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v5i4.1978
work_keys_str_mv AT mccannclaire comparativeevaluationofimagequalityfromthreectsimulationscanners
AT alastihamideh comparativeevaluationofimagequalityfromthreectsimulationscanners