A comparative study based on image quality and clinical task performance for CT reconstruction algorithms in radiotherapy

Abstract

CT image reconstruction is typically evaluated based on the ability to reduce the radiation dose to as‐low‐as‐reasonably‐achievable (ALARA) while maintaining acceptable image quality. However, the determination of common image quality metrics, such as noise, contrast, and contrast‐to‐noise ratio, is often insufficient for describing clinical radiotherapy task performance. In this study we designed and implemented a new comparative analysis method associating image quality, radiation dose, and patient size with radiotherapy task performance, with the purpose of guiding the clinical radiotherapy usage of CT reconstruction algorithms. The iDose4iterative reconstruction algorithm was selected as the target for comparison, wherein filtered back‐projection (FBP) reconstruction was regarded as the baseline. Both phantom and patient images were analyzed. A layer‐adjustable anthropomorphic pelvis phantom capable of mimicking 38–58 cm lateral diameter‐sized patients was imaged and reconstructed by the FBP and iDose4 algorithms with varying noise‐reduction‐levels, respectively. The resulting image sets were quantitatively assessed by two image quality indices, noise and contrast‐to‐noise ratio, and two clinical task‐based indices, target CT Hounsfield number (for electron density determination) and structure contouring accuracy (for dose‐volume calculations). Additionally, CT images of 34 patients reconstructed with iDose4 with six noise reduction levels were qualitatively evaluated by two radiation oncologists using a five‐point scoring mechanism. For the phantom experiments, iDose4 achieved noise reduction up to 66.1% and CNR improvement up to 53.2%, compared to FBP without considering the changes of spatial resolution among images and the clinical acceptance of reconstructed images. Such improvements consistently appeared across different iDose4 noise reduction levels, exhibiting limited interlevel noise (<5 HU) and target CT number variations (<1 HU). The radiation dose required to achieve similar contouring accuracy decreased when using iDose4 in place of FBP, up to 32%. Contouring accuracy improvement for iDose4 images, when compared to FBP, was greater in larger patients than smaller‐sized patients. Overall, the iDose4 algorithm provided superior radiation dose control while maintaining or improving task performance, when compared to FBP. The reader study on image quality improvement of patient cases shows that physicians preferred iDose4‐reconstructed images on all cases compared to those from FBP algorithm with overall quality score: 1.21 vs. 3.15, p=0.0022. However, qualitative evaluation strongly indicated that the radiation oncologists chose iDose4 noise reduction levels of 3–4 with additional consideration of task performance, instead of image quality metrics alone. Although higher iDose4 noise reduction levels improved the CNR through the further reduction of noise, there was pixelization of anatomical/tumor structures. Very‐low‐dose scans yielded severe photon starvation artifacts, which decreased target visu...

Optimal virtual monoenergetic image in “TwinBeam” dual‐energy CT for organs‐at‐risk delineation based on contrast‐noise‐ratio in head‐and‐neck radiotherapy

“…Most of these studies are based on analytical derivation and phantom study focusing on diagnostic detectability, while such studies in RT are sparse. Image quality, such as contrast‐noise‐ratio (CNR), has been shown to be directly related to manual or automated tumor/organ‐at‐risk (OAR) delineation accuracy in CT simulation images, thus the energy with optimal image quality for such clinical tasks in RT is worth investigation.…”

Cancer risk assessment in modern radiotherapy workflow with medical big data

“…For this reason, a series of scientific articles on CT have been raising increasing concern about image quality. 40 However, the higher the dose contributing to the image, the less apparent is image noise and the easier it is to perceive low-contrast structures. In view of possible cancer risk, CT dose reduction strategies and scanning protocols have been suggested to match CT dose with the necessary image quality by many organizations.…”

A comprehensive assessment of physical image quality of five different scanners for head CT imaging as clinically used at a single hospital centre—A phantom study

“…Nonetheless, an objective and in-depth physical characterization of performance of CT scanners [ 22 – 29 ], acquisition methods [ 30 – 35 ] and image reconstruction algorithms [ 36 – 41 ], in terms of specific quantitative image quality indices, remains an essential step. Indeed, these indices have the potential to serve as a basis for guiding and optimizing clinical protocols [ 42 – 44 ].…”