Advertisement
Original paper| Volume 45, P65-71, January 2018

Download started.

Ok

Image quality for radiotherapy CT simulators with different scanner bore size

  • Nada Tomic
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
    Affiliations
    Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Department of Radiation Oncology, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Pavlos Papaconstadopoulos
    Affiliations
    Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Department of Radiation Oncology, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Saad Aldelaijan
    Affiliations
    Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Department of Radiation Oncology, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Biological & Biomedical Engineering Department, Montreal Neurological Institute, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Biomedical Physics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Juha Rajala
    Affiliations
    Radiotherapy Department, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jan Seuntjens
    Affiliations
    Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Slobodan Devic
    Affiliations
    Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Department of Radiation Oncology, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author

      Highlights

      • Bore size in radiotherapy simulators.
      • Same imaging dose image quality comparison.
      • Tarde-off between imaging dose and radiotherapy precision.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      We compare image quality parameters derived from phantom images taken on three commercially available radiotherapy CT simulators. To make an unbiased evaluation, we assured images were obtained with the same surface dose measured using XR-QA2 model GafChromic™ film placed at the imaging phantom surface for all three CT-simulators.

      Methods

      Radiotherapy CT simulators GE LS 16, Philips Brilliance Big Bore, and Toshiba Aquilion LB were compared in terms of spatial resolution, low contrast detectability, image uniformity, and contrast to noise ratio using CATPHAN-504 phantom, scanned with Head and Pelvis protocols. Dose was measured at phantom surface, with CT scans repeated until doses on all scanners were within 2%.

      Results

      In terms of spatial resolution, the GE simulator appears slightly better, while Philips CT images are superior in terms of SNR for both scanning protocols. The CNR results show that Philips CT images appear to be better, except for high Z material, while Toshiba appears to fit in between the two simulators.

      Conclusions

      While the image quality parameters for three RT CT simulators show comparable results, the scanner bore size is of vital importance in various radiotherapy applications. Since the image quality is a function of a large number of confounding parameters, any loss in image quality due to scanner bore size could be compensated by the appropriate choice of scanning parameters, including the exposure and by balancing between the additional imaging dose to the patient and high image quality required in highly conformal RT techniques.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hounsfield G.N.
        Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): I. Description of system.
        Br J Radiol. 1973; 46: 1016-1022
        • Ledley R.S.
        • Wilson J.B.
        • Golab T.
        • Rotolo L.S.
        The ACTA-scanner: the whole body computerized transaxial tomograph.
        Comput Biol Med. 1974 Dec; 4: 145-155
        • Chernak E.S.
        • Rodriguez-Antunez A.
        • Jelden G.L.
        • et al.
        The use of computed tomography for radiation therapy treatment planning.
        Radiology. 1975; 117: 613-614
        • Munzenrider J.E.
        • Pilepich M.
        • Rene-Ferrero J.B.
        • Tcharkarova I.
        • Carter B.L.
        Use of body scanner in radiotherapy treatment planning.
        Cancer. 1977; 40: 170-179
        • Garcia-Ramirez J.L.
        • Mutic S.
        • Dempsey J.F.
        • Low D.A.
        • Purdy J.A.
        Performance evaluation of an 85-cm-bore X-ray computed tomography scanner designed for radiation oncology and comparison with current diagnostic CT scanners.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Mar 15; 52: 1123-1131
        • McCann C.
        • Alasti H.
        Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2004; 5: 55-70
        • Liu R.R.
        • Prado K.L.
        • Cody D.
        Optimal acquisition parameter selection for CT simulators in radiology oncology.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2008; 9: 151-160
        • Dixon R.L.
        A new look at CT dose measurement: Beyond CTDI.
        Med Phys. 2003; 30: 1272-11280
      1. Dixon RL, Anderson JA, Bakalyar DM, Boedeker K, Boone JM, Cody DD, Fahrig R, Jaffray DA, Kyprianou IS, McCollough CH, McNitt-Gray MF, Morgan HT, Morin RL, NAkonechny KD, Payne TJ, Pizzutiello RJ, Schmidt BT, Seibert AJ, Simon WE, Slowey TW, Stern SH, Sunde P, Toth TL, Vastagh S. Comprehensive Methodology for the Evaluation of Radiation Dose in X-Ray Computed Tomography: Report of the AAPM Task Group 111; 2010.

        • Tomic N.
        • Devic S.
        • DeBlois F.
        • Seuntjens J.
        Reference radiochromic film dosimetry in kilovoltage photon beams during CBCT image acquisition.
        Med Phys. 2010; 37: 1083-1092
        • Devic S.
        • Tomic N.
        • Lewis D.
        Reference radiochromic film dosimetry: review of technical aspects.
        Phys Med. 2016; 32: 541-556
        • Tomic N.
        • Quintero C.
        • Whiting B.R.
        • Aldelaijan S.
        • Bekerat H.
        • Liang L.
        • et al.
        Characterization of the calibration curves and energy dependence GafChromic™ XR-QA2 model based radiochromic film dosimetry system.
        Med Phys. 2014; 41 (062105 (9pp.))
      2. Lin P-JP, Beck TJ, Borras C, Cohen G, Jucius RA, Kriz RJ, Nickoloff EL, Rothenberg LN, Strauss KF, Villafana T, AAPM Report No.39, “ Specification and acceptance testing of computed tomography scanners”; 1993. pp. 1–95.

        • The Phantom Labaratory
        Catphan Manual.
        The Phantom Laboratory Inc, Salem, NY2001
      3. The PIPSPRO Software User Manual, Standard Imaging Inc.

        • Smith Steven K.
        The scientist and engineer's guide to digital signal processing.
        Chapter 25. California Technical Publishing, 1997
        • Elstrom U.V.
        • Muren L.P.
        • Petersen J.B.B.
        • Grau C.
        Acta Oncol. 2011; 50: 908-917