Cargando…

Evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography

PURPOSE: Cone‐beam computerized tomography (CBCT) is routinely performed for verification of patient position in radiotherapy. It produced a large amount of data which require a method to compress them for efficient storage. In this study three video compression algorithms were introduced and their...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yan, Hui, Li, Yexiong, Dai, Jianrong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6753726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31074197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12596
_version_ 1783452948733362176
author Yan, Hui
Li, Yexiong
Dai, Jianrong
author_facet Yan, Hui
Li, Yexiong
Dai, Jianrong
author_sort Yan, Hui
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Cone‐beam computerized tomography (CBCT) is routinely performed for verification of patient position in radiotherapy. It produced a large amount of data which require a method to compress them for efficient storage. In this study three video compression algorithms were introduced and their performance was evaluated based on real patient data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At first CBCT images in multiple sets of a patient were transferred from reconstruction workstation or exported from treatment planning system. Then CBCT images were sorted according to imaging time (time‐prioritized sequence) or imaging location (location‐prioritized sequence). Next, this sequence was processed by a video compression algorithm and resulted in a movie. Three representative video compression algorithms (Motion JPEG 2000, Motion JPEG AVI, and MPEG‐4) were employed and their compression performance was evaluated based on the CBCT data of 30 patients. RESULTS: Among three video compression algorithms, Motion JPEG 2000 has the least compression ratio since it is a lossless compression algorithm. Motion JPEG AVI and MPEG‐4 have higher compression ratios than Motion JPEG 2000 but come with certain image losses. For MPEG‐4, location‐prioritized sequences show higher compression ratio than time‐prioritized sequences. Based on the results achieved on the clinical target verification application, the registration accuracy of CBCT after decompression was comparable to that of the original CBCT. CONCLUSIONS: Video compression algorithms could provide a higher compression ratio comparing to static image compression algorithm. Although the loss of CBCT image due to compression its impact on registration accuracy of patient positioning is almost negligible. Video compression method is an effective way to substantially reduce the size of CBCT images for storage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6753726
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67537262019-09-23 Evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography Yan, Hui Li, Yexiong Dai, Jianrong J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging PURPOSE: Cone‐beam computerized tomography (CBCT) is routinely performed for verification of patient position in radiotherapy. It produced a large amount of data which require a method to compress them for efficient storage. In this study three video compression algorithms were introduced and their performance was evaluated based on real patient data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At first CBCT images in multiple sets of a patient were transferred from reconstruction workstation or exported from treatment planning system. Then CBCT images were sorted according to imaging time (time‐prioritized sequence) or imaging location (location‐prioritized sequence). Next, this sequence was processed by a video compression algorithm and resulted in a movie. Three representative video compression algorithms (Motion JPEG 2000, Motion JPEG AVI, and MPEG‐4) were employed and their compression performance was evaluated based on the CBCT data of 30 patients. RESULTS: Among three video compression algorithms, Motion JPEG 2000 has the least compression ratio since it is a lossless compression algorithm. Motion JPEG AVI and MPEG‐4 have higher compression ratios than Motion JPEG 2000 but come with certain image losses. For MPEG‐4, location‐prioritized sequences show higher compression ratio than time‐prioritized sequences. Based on the results achieved on the clinical target verification application, the registration accuracy of CBCT after decompression was comparable to that of the original CBCT. CONCLUSIONS: Video compression algorithms could provide a higher compression ratio comparing to static image compression algorithm. Although the loss of CBCT image due to compression its impact on registration accuracy of patient positioning is almost negligible. Video compression method is an effective way to substantially reduce the size of CBCT images for storage. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6753726/ /pubmed/31074197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12596 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Yan, Hui
Li, Yexiong
Dai, Jianrong
Evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography
title Evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography
title_full Evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography
title_fullStr Evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography
title_short Evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography
title_sort evaluation of video compression methods for cone‐beam computerized tomography
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6753726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31074197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12596
work_keys_str_mv AT yanhui evaluationofvideocompressionmethodsforconebeamcomputerizedtomography
AT liyexiong evaluationofvideocompressionmethodsforconebeamcomputerizedtomography
AT daijianrong evaluationofvideocompressionmethodsforconebeamcomputerizedtomography