Hunter Tillery, Cheyann Windsor, Christopher Aguilera
{"title":"Commissioning evaluation of a deviceless 4DCT scanner.","authors":"Hunter Tillery, Cheyann Windsor, Christopher Aguilera","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The utilization of four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) for radiation therapy has not seen major advances to the method of data binning since shortly after inception. Recently there is increased interest in the utilization of an alternative binning method rather than more established techniques. At this point routine quality assurance and commissioning of 4DCT have been well studied and established with traditional binning methods. Due to this new \"deviceless\" technique relying on algorithms instead of an external breathing signal, established dynamic phantoms and equipment typically used in the commissioning and quality assurance workflow have proven to no longer be compatible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A commercially available phantom was modified to include components that the deviceless 4D algorithm uses for binning. Typical 4DCT commissioning datasets were acquired and reconstructed using both deviceless and device-based binning techniques. Both regular and irregular breathing curves were evaluated for performance, similar to what would be seen with typical radiation therapy patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Deviceless and device-based binning methods performed similarly and well for regular breathing curves. As datasets became more irregular, the deviceless algorithm was better able to reconstruct 4DCTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Commissioning datasets for both device-based and deviceless 4DCTs were evaluated to test if modifications to a commercially available phantom would allow for an accurate comparison between binning systems. It was shown that not only did these modifications work but also highlighted a difference in the way that these systems binned data, which could be applied to patients with breathing irregularities.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70048"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","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/acm2.70048","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
Background: The utilization of four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) for radiation therapy has not seen major advances to the method of data binning since shortly after inception. Recently there is increased interest in the utilization of an alternative binning method rather than more established techniques. At this point routine quality assurance and commissioning of 4DCT have been well studied and established with traditional binning methods. Due to this new "deviceless" technique relying on algorithms instead of an external breathing signal, established dynamic phantoms and equipment typically used in the commissioning and quality assurance workflow have proven to no longer be compatible.
Methods: A commercially available phantom was modified to include components that the deviceless 4D algorithm uses for binning. Typical 4DCT commissioning datasets were acquired and reconstructed using both deviceless and device-based binning techniques. Both regular and irregular breathing curves were evaluated for performance, similar to what would be seen with typical radiation therapy patients.
Results: Deviceless and device-based binning methods performed similarly and well for regular breathing curves. As datasets became more irregular, the deviceless algorithm was better able to reconstruct 4DCTs.
Conclusion: Commissioning datasets for both device-based and deviceless 4DCTs were evaluated to test if modifications to a commercially available phantom would allow for an accurate comparison between binning systems. It was shown that not only did these modifications work but also highlighted a difference in the way that these systems binned data, which could be applied to patients with breathing irregularities.
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