Pavel Govyadinov, Rick R Layman, Tucker Netherton, Raymond Mumme, Aaron K Jones, Laurence E Court, Moiz Ahmad
{"title":"Robust automated method of spatial resolution measurement in radiotherapy CT simulation images.","authors":"Pavel Govyadinov, Rick R Layman, Tucker Netherton, Raymond Mumme, Aaron K Jones, Laurence E Court, Moiz Ahmad","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Variation in imaging protocol, patient positioning, and the presence of artifacts can vary image quality in CT images used for radiotherapy planning. Automated methods for spatial resolution (SR) estimation exist but require further investigation and validation for wider adoption.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validated previously existing algorithm for SR estimation and introduce improvements that make it robust to patient positioning, CT protocol, site, and artifacts.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A reference algorithm based on the previous gold standard was recreated and modified to improve robustness. The algorithms were tested on three different datasets: (1) a cylindrical ACR CT QC phantom scanned using a Siemens SOMATOM Definition Edge scanner and reconstructed using 61 different kernels, (2) a set of anthropomorphic phantoms scanned with the presence of artifacts common to clinical acquisitions such as blankets and immobilization devices, and (3) a clinical patient dataset of head and neck (HN) CT scans (nine patients) and spine/pelvis (10 patients). The robustness of both algorithms was tested on the clinical patient data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over the range of tested kernels, both algorithms were accurate when the ground truth MTF f<sub>50</sub> was within the range 0.2-0.7 mm<sup>-1</sup> in the cylindrical phantom datasets with an RMS error of 10.3% and 3.8% for the reference and modified versions of the algorithm, respectively, as compared to the ground truth. In the anthropomorphic phantom datasets the reference algorithm showed an 8.4% and 30.0% difference from ground truth for the Pelvic and HN phantoms, respectively, while the modified algorithm showed 4.9% and 3.9% percent difference from ground truth. In the clinical dataset the reference algorithm estimated a mean f<sub>50</sub> value of 0.21 ± 0.03 mm<sup>-1</sup> and 0.25 ± 0.03 mm<sup>-1</sup> for pelvis/spine while the reference algorithm estimated mean of 0.28 ± 0.02 and 0.29 ± 0.01 mm<sup>-1</sup> for HN and pelvis/spine, respectively, as compared to the ground truth found to be 0.28 mm<sup>-1</sup> on the cylindrical phantom.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SR algorithm was validated cylindrical/anthropomorphic phantoms and clinical CT scans. Further modifications were tested and showed improved accuracy in more challenging CT acquisitions.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70006"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","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/acm2.70006","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: Variation in imaging protocol, patient positioning, and the presence of artifacts can vary image quality in CT images used for radiotherapy planning. Automated methods for spatial resolution (SR) estimation exist but require further investigation and validation for wider adoption.
Purpose: To validated previously existing algorithm for SR estimation and introduce improvements that make it robust to patient positioning, CT protocol, site, and artifacts.
Method: A reference algorithm based on the previous gold standard was recreated and modified to improve robustness. The algorithms were tested on three different datasets: (1) a cylindrical ACR CT QC phantom scanned using a Siemens SOMATOM Definition Edge scanner and reconstructed using 61 different kernels, (2) a set of anthropomorphic phantoms scanned with the presence of artifacts common to clinical acquisitions such as blankets and immobilization devices, and (3) a clinical patient dataset of head and neck (HN) CT scans (nine patients) and spine/pelvis (10 patients). The robustness of both algorithms was tested on the clinical patient data.
Results: Over the range of tested kernels, both algorithms were accurate when the ground truth MTF f50 was within the range 0.2-0.7 mm-1 in the cylindrical phantom datasets with an RMS error of 10.3% and 3.8% for the reference and modified versions of the algorithm, respectively, as compared to the ground truth. In the anthropomorphic phantom datasets the reference algorithm showed an 8.4% and 30.0% difference from ground truth for the Pelvic and HN phantoms, respectively, while the modified algorithm showed 4.9% and 3.9% percent difference from ground truth. In the clinical dataset the reference algorithm estimated a mean f50 value of 0.21 ± 0.03 mm-1 and 0.25 ± 0.03 mm-1 for pelvis/spine while the reference algorithm estimated mean of 0.28 ± 0.02 and 0.29 ± 0.01 mm-1 for HN and pelvis/spine, respectively, as compared to the ground truth found to be 0.28 mm-1 on the cylindrical phantom.
Conclusion: The SR algorithm was validated cylindrical/anthropomorphic phantoms and clinical CT scans. Further modifications were tested and showed improved accuracy in more challenging CT acquisitions.
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