On the improvement of CBCT image quality for soft tissue‐based SRS localization

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: We explore the optimal cone-beam CT (CBCT) acquisition parameters to improve CBCT image quality to enhance intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) localization and also assess the imaging dose levels associated with each imaging protocol. METHODS: linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with different x-ray tube current and potential settings, gantry rotation trajectories, and gantry rotation speeds. To assess image quality, images of the Catphan 504 phantom were analyzed to evaluate the following image quality metrics: uniformity, HU constancy, spatial resolution, low contrast detection, noise level, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). To evaluate the imaging dose for each protocol, the cone-beam dose index (CBDI) was measured. To validate the phantom results, further analysis was performed with an anthropomorphic head phantom as well as image data acquired for a clinical SRS patient. RESULTS: The Catphan data indicates that adjusting acquisition parameters had direct effects on the image noise level, low contrast detection, and CNR, but had minimal effects on uniformity, HU constancy, and spatial resolution. The noise level was reduced from 34.5 ± 0.3 to 18.5 ± 0.2 HU with a four-fold reduction in gantry speed, and to 18.7 ± 0.2 HU with a four-fold increase in tube current. Overall, the noise level was found to be proportional to inverse square root of imaging dose, and imaging dose was proportional to the product of total tube current-time product and the cube of the x-ray potential. Analysis of the anthropomorphic head phantom data and clinical SRS imaging data also indicates that noise is reduced with imaging dose increase. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that optimization of the imaging protocol, and thereby an increase in the imaging dose, is warranted for improved soft-tissue visualization for intracranial SRS.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.