Robust automated method of spatial resolution measurement in radiotherapy CT simulation images.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1002/acm2.70006
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
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
期刊最新文献
Feasibility study of skin dosimetry with TLD sheets for measuring the effect of 3D printed bolus in radiotherapy. Review of the application of dual-energy CT combined with radiomics in the diagnosis and analysis of lung cancer. Radiation oncology at crossroads: Rise of AI and managing the unexpected. Assessing proton plans with three different beam delivery systems versus photon plans for head and neck tumors. Commissioning of Halcyon enhanced leaf model in the Eclipse treatment planning system: Focus on simple slit fields and VMAT dose calculation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1