4.6 Article

High temporal resolution and streak-free four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 20, 页码 5653-5673

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/20/006

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01EB 005712, R01EB07902]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been clinically used to verify patient position and to localize the target of treatment in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). However, when the chest and the upper abdomen are scanned, respiratory-induced motion blurring limits the utility of CBCT. In order to mitigate this blurring, respiratory-gated CBCT, i.e. 4D CBCT, was introduced. In 4D CBCT, the cone-beam projection data sets acquired during a gantry rotation are sorted into several respiratory phases. In these gated reconstructions, the number of projections for each respiratory phase is significantly reduced. Consequently, undersampling streaking artifacts are present in the reconstructed images, and the image contrast resolution is also significantly compromised. In this paper, we present a new method to simultaneously achieve both high temporal resolution (similar to 100 ms) and streaking artifact-free image volumes in 4D CBCT. The enabling technique is a newly proposed image reconstruction method, i.e. prior image constrained compressed sensing (PICCS), which enables accurate image reconstruction using vastly undersampled cone-beam projections and a fully sampled prior image. Using PICCS, a streak-free image can be reconstructed from 10-20 cone-beam projections while the signal-to-noise ratio is determined by a denoising feature of the selected objective function and by the prior image, which is reconstructed using all of the acquired cone-beam projections. This feature of PICCS breaks the connection between the temporal resolution and streaking artifacts' level in 4D CBCT. Numerical simulations and experimental phantom studies have been conducted to validate the method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据