4.4 Article

Quality evaluation of monoenergetic images generated by dual-energy computed tomography for radiotherapy: A phantom study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.05.019

关键词

Spectral CT; Monoenergetic CT; Dual energy; Quality of CT images

资金

  1. Greater Poland Cancer Centre [19/2015(111)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Quantification analysis for monoenergetic computed tomography (CT) images obtained from dualenergy CT scanning was performed in the light of their potential use for structures delineation during radiotherapy. Methods: Parameters that describe the quality of the images are: linearity, low and high contrast resolution, uniformity, noise and signal to noise ratio (SNR). To evaluate these parameters, a Catphan phantom was scanned using a dual-energy mode at Somatom Definition AS. Based on the polyenergetic CT images, sixteen monoenergetic series (ranged from 40 keV to 190 keV) were created by CT scanner software and automatically analyzed using Artiscan software. Results: Analysis of linearity shows that a potential use of any monoenergetic images in radiotherapy planning requires that individual calibration curves are implemented for each of them. While the results of the high contrast resolution analysis were comparable for each energy (5 1p/cm), the results of the analyses for uniformity, low contrast resolution, noise and SNR allowed us to select the best imaging energies. The highest relative uniformity was detected for images reconstructed for energies of 60 keV and 70 keV (98.54% and 98.61%). Similar results were observed for low contrast resolution, where the largest number of disks was detected for these energies, and the noise values (0.42% for 60 keV, 0.44% for 70 keV). The best SNR was observed for images reconstructed for energy of 60 keV. Conclusions: Taking into account these results, the energy of 70 keV was selected as potentially the best for reconstruction of monoenergetic images used for structures delineation during radiotherapy.

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

4.4
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