A comprehensive study on decreasing the kilovoltage cone‐beam CT dose by reducing the projection number

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of kilovoltage cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) on registration accuracy and image qualities with a reduced number of planar projections used in volumetric imaging reconstruction. The ultimate goal is to evaluate the possibility of reducing the patient dose while maintaining registration accuracy under different projection‐number schemes for various clinical sites. An Elekta Synergy Linear accelerator with an onboard CBCT system was used in this study. The quality of the Elekta XVI cone‐beam three‐dimensional volumetric images reconstructed with a decreasing number of projections was quantitatively evaluated by a Catphan phantom. Subsequently, we tested the registration accuracy of imaging data sets on three rigid anthropomorphic phantoms and three real patient sites under the reduced projection‐number (as low as 1/6th) reconstruction of CBCT data with different rectilinear shifts and rotations. CBCT scan results of the Catphan phantom indicated the CBCT images got noisier when the number of projections was reduced, but their spatial resolution and uniformity were hardly affected. The maximum registration errors under the small amount transformation of the reference CT images were found to be within 0.7 mm translation and 0.3° rotation. However, when the projection number was lower than one‐fourth of the full set with a large amount of transformation of reference CT images, the registration could easily be trapped into local minima solutions for a nonrigid anatomy. We concluded, by using projection‐number reduction strategy under conscientious care, imaging‐guided localization procedure could achieve a lower patient dose without losing the registration accuracy for various clinical sites and situations. A faster scanning time is the main advantage compared to the mA decrease‐based, dose‐reduction method.PACS numbers: 87.57.C‐, 87.57.cf, 87.57.cj, 87.57.cm, 87.57.cp, 87.57.N‐, 87.57.nf, 87.57.nj

Imaging dose from cone beam computed tomography in radiation therapy

“…There is also the additional concern of increasing the chance of secondary cancers because of imaging dose. These stochastic risks have been recognized and estimated by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 75 [5] and others [6,7]. Realizing the potential for significant imaging dose, many have investigated the magnitude of this dose by measurements and calculations.…”

Target localization of 3D versus 4D cone beam computed tomography in lipiodol-guided stereotactic radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinomas

“…In fact, the actual clinical 3D–CBCT acquisition protocol takes only 652 projections which were almost half of the 4D–CBCT protocol. As low contrast visibility and structural noise become worse as the number of projections decreases, the image quality of a real 3D–CBCT would be actually worse compared to 4D–CBCT [25]. Nonetheless, the image quality was found to have minimal impact on the registration errors even if the number of projections was reduced to one fourth for the default imaging protocol [25].…”

An approach for online evaluations of dose consequences caused by small rotational setup errors in intracranial stereotactic radiation therapy

“…However, it should be noted that this method was based on ignoring the residual and intrinsic uncertainty of IGRT systems for position corrections, which could lead the simulated dose consequences to the CTVs and OARs to slightly deviate from the real situation. Since IGRT systems usually have a very small uncertainty ( 1 mm=1 ), [23][24][25][26] the dose consequences due to the uncertainty of the IGRT system have been excluded in this study to simplify our analysis. The OARs, including brainstem, optic chiasm, spinal cord, cochleas, lenses, retinas, optic nerves, and hippocampuses, were delineated by clinicians as well for dose evaluation purposes.…”