[an error occurred while processing this directive]|[an error occurred while processing this directive]
快速锥形束CT成像模式研究
李明辉, 牛传猛, 张可, 田源, 门阔, 戴建荣
国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院放疗科 100021
A study on fast cone beam CT
Li Minghui, Niu Chuanmeng, Zhang Ke, Tian Yuan, Men Kuo, Dai Jianrong
National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
Abstract：Objective To evaluate the effect of fast cone beam CT (CBCT) scan mode on image quality and registration results, and to establish the scanning pre-settings for fast CBCT. Methods Three scanning modes were utilized to the CBCT phantom, and the registration accuracy and image quality were quantitatively evaluated. The correlation and consistency of measurement results under different scanning modes were further verified by 278 sets of CBCT data from 33 clinical tumor patients. Results The maximum deviation between the measurement results of three scanning models and the actual value was 0.70 mm (0.51 mm on average). The measurement results of the same location were consistent among three scanning modes (0.00 mm). For the uniformity, the results of the normal mode were the best (3.62% on average), followed by the fast 1 mode (3.90% on average) and the fast 2 mode (4.84% on average). For the noise, the results of the normal mode were the best (15.69 on average), followed by the fast 2 mode (17.23 on average) and the fast 1 mode (21.74 on average). Regarding the high contrast resolution, the measurement results of three scanning modes were consistent (at least 3 pairs could be distinguished). For the low contrast resolution, the results of the fast 1 mode were the best (1.69 on average), followed by the normal mode (2.10 on average), and the fast 2 mode (2.31 on average). For the geometric accuracy, the measurement results of the three scanning modes were basically consistent with a mean deviation of 0.05 mm. The correlation of the measurement results between normal mode and fast 1 mode was the highest in clinical cases (R2>0.90, P<0.01) with a high degree of consistency (95% consistency limit of the above two scanning modes< 1 mm threshold). Conclusion Compared with the normal mode, the fast 1 mode can yield equivalent image quality, consistent registration results, faster scanning speed and lower scanning dose. Therefore, the fast 1 mode is recommended as the scan mode in clinical practice.
[1] Chan MF, Yang J, Song Y, et al. Evaluation of imaging performance of major image guidance systems[J]. Biomed ImagIntervent J, 2011, 7(2):e11. DOI:10.2349/bⅡj.7.2.e11.
[2] Sykes JR, Lindsay R, Dean CJ, et al. Measurement of cone beam CT coincidence with megavoltage isocentre and image sharpness using the QUASAR Penta-Guide phantom[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2008, 53(19):5275-5293. DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/53/19/002.
[3] ElstrmUK, Muren LP, Petersen JBB, et al. Evaluation of image quality for different kV cone-beam CT acquisition and reconstruction methods in the head and neck region[J]. Acta Oncol, 2011, 50(6):908-917. DOI:10.3109/0284186X.2011.590525.
[4] Shi W, Li JG,Zlotecki RA, et al. Evaluation of kV cone-beam CT performance for prostate IGRT[J]. Am J Clin Oncol, 2011, 34(1):16-21. DOI:10.1097/coc.0b013e3181d26b1a.
[5] 李明辉, 戴建荣. 锥形束CT图像引导放疗系统的质量保证[J]. 中国肿瘤, 2008, 17(8):672-675.
Li MH, Dai JR. Quality Assurance for cone beam CT image-guided radiotherapy system[J]. China Cancer, 2008, 17(8):672-675.
[6] Murphy MJ, Balter J, Balter S, et al. The management of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy:report of the AAPM Task Group 75[J]. Med Phys,2007, 34(10):4041-4063. DOI:10.1118/1.2775667.
[7] 汪隽琦, 胡伟刚, 彭佳元, 等. 间歇式屏气CBCT图像采集优选模式研究[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志, 2017(1):57-61. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2017.01.013.
Wang JQ, Hu WG, Peng JY, et al. Investigation of image guidance strategy for intermittent breath-hold cone beam CT[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol, 2017(1):57-61. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2017.01.013.
[8] 李明辉, 张寅, 戴建荣, 等. 千伏级X线透视成像与锥形束CT确定头颈部摆位误差的比较[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志, 2012, 21(4):374-376. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2012.04.023.
Li MH, Zhang Y, Dai JR, et al. Comparing the performance of two methods to determine setup errors for patients with headandneck cancer[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol, 2012, 21(4):374-376. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2012.04.023.
[9] Ding GX, Alaei P, Curran B, et al. Image guidance doses delivered during radiotherapy:quantification, management, and reduction:report of the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee Task Group 180[J]. Med Phys, 2018, 45(5):84-99. DOI:10.1002/mp.12824.
2020, Vol. 29 
