[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
IJRR Information::
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Keywords
For Authors::
Aims and Scope
Call for Papers
Submission Instructions
For Reviewers::
Referee page
Subscription::
Subscription Form
News & Events::
Journal News
Web Mail::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
ISSN
Hard Copy 2322-3243
Online 2345-4229
..
Online Submission
Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.
..

AWT IMAGE

AWT IMAGE
:: Volume 21, Issue 3 (6-2023) ::
Int J Radiat Res 2023, 21(3): 491-497 Back to browse issues page
Assessment of image quality of two cone-beam computed tomography of the Varian Linear accelerators: Comparison with spiral CT simulator
H. Ragab , D.M. Abdelaziz , M.M. Khalil , M.N. Yasein Elbakry
Department of Radiation Oncology, Warith International Cancer Institute (WICI), University of Warith Al. Anbiyaa, Karbala, Iraq
Abstract:   (1383 Views)
Background: To assess and compare image quality characteristics of x-ray computed tomography (CT) and cone beam (CBCT) imaging systems of the Varian linear accelerator. Materials and Methods: The CatPhan®504, was examined on the CT simulator (SOMATOM Definition AS, VA48A) and two CBCTs (TrueBeam™ and Clinac® iX linear accelerators) attached to Varian linear accelerator. Image quality parameters including pixel value stability, spatial linearity, pixel size verification, uniformity, noise, spatial resolution, low contrast resolution, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were assessed using different scanning protocols. Results: The mean pixel values of regions of interest were stable for CT, TB, and iX-CBCT imaging. Noise on CT was slightly lower and was seen to decrease with increasing mAs, while CNR increased with CT mAs and two CBCTs. For all schemes, the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) of the reconstructed image was limited by the pixel size. Low contrast targets for TB-CBCT were visible, with up to 6 and 2 targets for 1% and 0.5% for contrast, respectively. However, up to 4 targets of 1% contrast on iX-CBCT images are visible for the low-contrast objectives. Also, up to 8, 4, and 1 targets of 1%, 0.5%, and 0.3% contrast were visible for the low-contrast targets on CT images. Conclusions: CT and CBCT image quality parameters have been quantified and compared for clinical protocols in different mAs conditions. Selecting the right protocol will boost contrast, based on image quality criteria. The mAs can be decreased to minimize patient dosage.
Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography, image quality, TB-CBCT, iX-CBCT.
Full-Text [PDF 995 kb]   (986 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Radiation Biology
References
1. Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH, Wong JW, Martinez AA (2002) Flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol, 53(5): 1337-49. [DOI:10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02884-5]
2. Elstrøm U V, Wysocka BA, Muren LP, et al. (2010) Cone-beam CT and deformable image registration as a method for studying dosimetric consequences of anatomic changes in adaptive IMRT of head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol (Madr), 49(7): 1101-8. [DOI:10.3109/0284186X.2010.500304] [PMID]
3. Dawson LA and Jaffray DA (2007) Advances in image-guided radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol, 25(8): 938-46. [DOI:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.9515] [PMID]
4. Verellen D, Ridder M De, Storme GA (2008) Short history of image-guided radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol, 86(1): 4-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2007.11.023] [PMID]
5. Kim S, Yoo S, Yin F-F, et al. (2010) Kilovoltage cone-beam CT: Comparative dose and image quality evaluations in partial and full-angle scan protocols. Med Phys, 37(7Part1): 3648-59. [DOI:10.1118/1.3438478] [PMID]
6. Elstrøm U V, Muren LP, Petersen JBB, Grau C (2011) Evaluation of image quality for different kV cone-beam CT acquisition and reconstruction methods in the head and neck region. Acta Oncol (Madr), 50(6): 908-17. [DOI:10.3109/0284186X.2011.590525] [PMID]
7. Bissonnette J-P, Moseley DJ, Jaffray DA (2008) A quality assurance program for image quality of cone-beam CT guidance in radiation therapy. [Internet] Med Phys, 35(5):1807-15. [DOI:10.1118/1.2900110] [PMID]
8. Kamath S, Song W, Chvetsov A, Li J, et al. (2011) An image quality comparison study between XVI and OBI CBCT systems. Med Phys, 35(6): 2648. [DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3435] [PMID] []
9. Miura H, Ozawa S, Hayata M, et al. (2017) Evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography image quality assurance for Vero4DRT system. [Internet] Reports Pract Oncol Radiother, 22(3): 258-63. [DOI:10.1016/j.rpor.2016.12.001] [PMID] []
10. Zhang J, Bao ZR, Huang XT, et al. (2019) Methods to evaluate the performance of kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography in the three-dimensional reconstruction space. Int J Radiat Res, 17(2):189-202.
11. Chen L, Shaw CC, Mustafa C, et al. (2008) Spatial resolution properties in cone beam CT: A simulation study. Med Phys, 35(2): 724-34. [DOI:10.1118/1.2829867] [PMID] []
12. Endo M, Tsunoo T, Nakamori N, Yoshida K (2001) Effect of scattered radiation on image noise in cone beam CT. Med Phys, 28(4): 469-74. [DOI:10.1118/1.1357457] [PMID]
13. Jaffray DA and Siewerdsen JH (2000) Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: Initial performance characterization. Med Phys, 27(6): 1311-23. [DOI:10.1118/1.599009] [PMID]
14. Yang K, Kwan ALC, Huang S-Y, et al. (2008) Noise power properties of a cone-beam CT system for breast cancer detection. Med Phys, 35(12): 5317-27. [DOI:10.1118/1.3002411] [PMID] []
15. Shepherd J (2014) Applications of linac-mounted kilovoltage Cone-beam Computed Tomography in modern radiation therapy: A review. Polish J Radiol, 79: 181-93. [DOI:10.12659/PJR.890745] [PMID] []
16. The Phantom Laboratory (2013) Catphan ® 504 Manual CTP504. 2013.
17. EFOMP-ESTRO-IAEA (2019) Quality control in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) EFOMP-ESTRO-IAEA protocol. 2019.
18. IAEA (2012) Quality Assurance Programme for Computed Tomography: Diagnostic and Therapy Applications, Human Health Series No. 19. Vienna; 2012.
19. Droege RT and Morin RL (1982) A practical method to measure the MTF of CT scanners. Med Phys, 9(5): 758-60. [DOI:10.1118/1.595124] [PMID]
20. Gulliksrud K, Stokke C, Trægde Martinsen AC (2014) How to measure CT image quality: Variations in CT-numbers, uniformity and low contrast resolution for a CT quality assurance phantom. Phys Medica, 30(4): 521-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.01.006] [PMID]
21. Roa AMA, Andersen HK, Martinsen ACT (2015) CT image quality over time: comparison of image quality for six different CT scanners over a six-year period. J Appl Clin Med Phys,16(2): 350-65. [DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.4972] [PMID] []
22. Steiding C, Kolditz D, Kalender WA (2014) A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography. [Internet] Med Phys, 41(3): 031901. [DOI:10.1118/1.4863507] [PMID]
23. Cheng HCY, Wu VWC, Liu ESF, Kwong DLW (2011) Evaluation of radiation dose and image quality for the Varian cone beam computed tomography system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 80(1): 291-300. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.06.014] [PMID]
24. Stock M, Pasler M, Birkfellner W, et al. (2009) Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study. [Internet] Radiother Oncol, 93(1): 1-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012] [PMID] []
25. Sumida I, Yamaguchi H, Kizaki H, et al. (2014) Evaluation of imaging performance of megavoltage cone-beam CT over an extended period. J Radiat Res, 55(1): 191-9. [DOI:10.1093/jrr/rrt100] [PMID] []
26. Lechuga L, Weidlich G A. (September 12, 2016) Cone Beam CT vs. Fan Beam CT: A Comparison of Image Quality and Dose Delivered Between Two Differing CT Imaging Modalities. Cureus 8(9): e778. DOI 10.7759/cureus.778 [DOI:10.7759/cureus.778] [PMID] []
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ragab H, Abdelaziz D, Khalil M, Yasein Elbakry M. Assessment of image quality of two cone-beam computed tomography of the Varian Linear accelerators: Comparison with spiral CT simulator. Int J Radiat Res 2023; 21 (3) :491-497
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-4879-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 21, Issue 3 (6-2023) Back to browse issues page
International Journal of Radiation Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 50 queries by YEKTAWEB 4660