Inhwan Yeo, Wei Nie, Jiajin Fan, Mindy Joo, Michael Correa, Qianyi Xu
{"title":"Evaluating artifact-free four-dimensional computer tomography with 16 cm detector array.","authors":"Inhwan Yeo, Wei Nie, Jiajin Fan, Mindy Joo, Michael Correa, Qianyi Xu","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate a 16 cm-array axial four-dimensional computer tomography (4DCT) in comparison with a 4 cm-array 4DCT in the presence of respiration irregularity.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Ten traces of lung tumor motion from CyberKnife treatments were imported to move the lung cylinder, containing a spherical target, of a phantom. Images were acquired for the lung that moved to each of the 10-positions/phases (1) step-wisely by nominal helical scan at each movement (ground truth), (2) continuously by 4D scan with the 16 cm array, and (3) the same with the 4 cm array, involving table shift. Irregularities, consisting of baseline shift and/or amplitude change of the traces in their second periods, affected #3 scan only in its second table position. The full-widths at half maximum of the target in the direction of the motion were determined on the average (Ave) CT, maximum-intensity (Mip) CT, and a phase (MP) CT that is associated with the maximum error, comparing #2 and 3 with #1. Three tumor-shaped targets were also imaged, and overlap ratios of them from #2 and 3 with the targets from #1 were inter-compared. Hounsfield unit (HU)s of the targets were also compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average difference in the spherical-target length between #2 and #1 was found to be 0.28 ± 0.15 cm on AveCT, 0.00 ± 0.18 cm on MipCT, and 0.07 ± 0.06 cm on MPCT, showing agreement. The average difference between #3 and #1 was 0.34 ± 0.23 cm on AveCT, 0.48 ± 0.31 cm on MipCT, and 0.56 ± 0.50 cm on MPCT, showing disagreement. The overlap ratios were better with #2 than with #3 for all tumor-shaped targets in each phase CT and MipCT, but they were not perfect for #2 due to motion averaging and phase sorting limitations. The differences in HUs were smaller with #2 than with #3, but not fully satisfactory with #2.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>4DCT with the 16 cm array needs to be used to minimize the impact of the irregularity.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70056"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate a 16 cm-array axial four-dimensional computer tomography (4DCT) in comparison with a 4 cm-array 4DCT in the presence of respiration irregularity.
Method: Ten traces of lung tumor motion from CyberKnife treatments were imported to move the lung cylinder, containing a spherical target, of a phantom. Images were acquired for the lung that moved to each of the 10-positions/phases (1) step-wisely by nominal helical scan at each movement (ground truth), (2) continuously by 4D scan with the 16 cm array, and (3) the same with the 4 cm array, involving table shift. Irregularities, consisting of baseline shift and/or amplitude change of the traces in their second periods, affected #3 scan only in its second table position. The full-widths at half maximum of the target in the direction of the motion were determined on the average (Ave) CT, maximum-intensity (Mip) CT, and a phase (MP) CT that is associated with the maximum error, comparing #2 and 3 with #1. Three tumor-shaped targets were also imaged, and overlap ratios of them from #2 and 3 with the targets from #1 were inter-compared. Hounsfield unit (HU)s of the targets were also compared.
Results: The average difference in the spherical-target length between #2 and #1 was found to be 0.28 ± 0.15 cm on AveCT, 0.00 ± 0.18 cm on MipCT, and 0.07 ± 0.06 cm on MPCT, showing agreement. The average difference between #3 and #1 was 0.34 ± 0.23 cm on AveCT, 0.48 ± 0.31 cm on MipCT, and 0.56 ± 0.50 cm on MPCT, showing disagreement. The overlap ratios were better with #2 than with #3 for all tumor-shaped targets in each phase CT and MipCT, but they were not perfect for #2 due to motion averaging and phase sorting limitations. The differences in HUs were smaller with #2 than with #3, but not fully satisfactory with #2.
Conclusion: 4DCT with the 16 cm array needs to be used to minimize the impact of the irregularity.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
