Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study

Markus Stock; Marlies Pasler; Wolfgang Birkfellner; Peter Homolka; Richard Poetter; Dietmar Georg

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012

Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study

Markus Stock^*, Marlies Pasler, Wolfgang Birkfellner, Peter Homolka, Richard Poetter, Dietmar Georg

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Journal article (peer-reviewed) › Journal article

73 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to implement standards for quality assurance of IGRT devices used in our department and to compare their performances with that of a CT simulator.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated image quality parameters for three devices over a period of 16months. A multislice CT was used as a benchmark and results related to noise, spatial resolution, low contrast visibility (LCV) and uniformity were compared with a cone beam CT (CBCT) at a linac and simulator.

RESULTS: All devices performed well in terms of LCV and, in fact, exceeded vendor specifications. MTF was comparable between CT and linac CBCT. Integral nonuniformity was, on average, 0.002 for the CT and 0.006 for the linac CBCT. Uniformity, LCV and MTF varied depending on the protocols used for the linac CBCT. Contrast-to-noise ratio was an average of 51% higher for the CT than for the linac and simulator CBCT. No significant time trend was observed and tolerance limits were implemented.

DISCUSSION: Reasonable differences in image quality between CT and CBCT were observed. Further research and development are necessary to increase image quality of commercially available CBCT devices in order for them to serve the needs for adaptive and/or online planning.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-7
Number of pages	7
Journal	Radiotherapy and Oncology
Volume	93
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012
Publication status	Published - Oct 2009
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Artifacts
Computer Simulation
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/instrumentation
Contrast Media
Equipment Design
Equipment Safety
Humans
Phantoms, Imaging
Radiation Oncology/instrumentation
Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation
Radiography, Interventional
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation
Radiotherapy, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation
Radiotherapy, Conformal/instrumentation
Tomography, X-Ray Computed/instrumentation
Total Quality Management

Access to Document

10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012

Cite this

@article{858950a729874866a37b11df0ecfb40a,

title = "Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study",

abstract = "INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to implement standards for quality assurance of IGRT devices used in our department and to compare their performances with that of a CT simulator.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated image quality parameters for three devices over a period of 16months. A multislice CT was used as a benchmark and results related to noise, spatial resolution, low contrast visibility (LCV) and uniformity were compared with a cone beam CT (CBCT) at a linac and simulator.RESULTS: All devices performed well in terms of LCV and, in fact, exceeded vendor specifications. MTF was comparable between CT and linac CBCT. Integral nonuniformity was, on average, 0.002 for the CT and 0.006 for the linac CBCT. Uniformity, LCV and MTF varied depending on the protocols used for the linac CBCT. Contrast-to-noise ratio was an average of 51% higher for the CT than for the linac and simulator CBCT. No significant time trend was observed and tolerance limits were implemented.DISCUSSION: Reasonable differences in image quality between CT and CBCT were observed. Further research and development are necessary to increase image quality of commercially available CBCT devices in order for them to serve the needs for adaptive and/or online planning.",

keywords = "Artifacts, Computer Simulation, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/instrumentation, Contrast Media, Equipment Design, Equipment Safety, Humans, Phantoms, Imaging, Radiation Oncology/instrumentation, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation, Radiography, Interventional, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation, Radiotherapy, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation, Radiotherapy, Conformal/instrumentation, Tomography, X-Ray Computed/instrumentation, Total Quality Management",

author = "Markus Stock and Marlies Pasler and Wolfgang Birkfellner and Peter Homolka and Richard Poetter and Dietmar Georg",

year = "2009",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012",

language = "English",

volume = "93",

pages = "1--7",

journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",

issn = "0167-8140",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices

T2 - A comparative study

AU - Stock, Markus

AU - Pasler, Marlies

AU - Birkfellner, Wolfgang

AU - Homolka, Peter

AU - Poetter, Richard

AU - Georg, Dietmar

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to implement standards for quality assurance of IGRT devices used in our department and to compare their performances with that of a CT simulator.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated image quality parameters for three devices over a period of 16months. A multislice CT was used as a benchmark and results related to noise, spatial resolution, low contrast visibility (LCV) and uniformity were compared with a cone beam CT (CBCT) at a linac and simulator.RESULTS: All devices performed well in terms of LCV and, in fact, exceeded vendor specifications. MTF was comparable between CT and linac CBCT. Integral nonuniformity was, on average, 0.002 for the CT and 0.006 for the linac CBCT. Uniformity, LCV and MTF varied depending on the protocols used for the linac CBCT. Contrast-to-noise ratio was an average of 51% higher for the CT than for the linac and simulator CBCT. No significant time trend was observed and tolerance limits were implemented.DISCUSSION: Reasonable differences in image quality between CT and CBCT were observed. Further research and development are necessary to increase image quality of commercially available CBCT devices in order for them to serve the needs for adaptive and/or online planning.

AB - INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to implement standards for quality assurance of IGRT devices used in our department and to compare their performances with that of a CT simulator.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated image quality parameters for three devices over a period of 16months. A multislice CT was used as a benchmark and results related to noise, spatial resolution, low contrast visibility (LCV) and uniformity were compared with a cone beam CT (CBCT) at a linac and simulator.RESULTS: All devices performed well in terms of LCV and, in fact, exceeded vendor specifications. MTF was comparable between CT and linac CBCT. Integral nonuniformity was, on average, 0.002 for the CT and 0.006 for the linac CBCT. Uniformity, LCV and MTF varied depending on the protocols used for the linac CBCT. Contrast-to-noise ratio was an average of 51% higher for the CT than for the linac and simulator CBCT. No significant time trend was observed and tolerance limits were implemented.DISCUSSION: Reasonable differences in image quality between CT and CBCT were observed. Further research and development are necessary to increase image quality of commercially available CBCT devices in order for them to serve the needs for adaptive and/or online planning.

KW - Artifacts

KW - Computer Simulation

KW - Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/instrumentation

KW - Contrast Media

KW - Equipment Design

KW - Equipment Safety

KW - Humans

KW - Phantoms, Imaging

KW - Radiation Oncology/instrumentation

KW - Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation

KW - Radiography, Interventional

KW - Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation

KW - Radiotherapy, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation

KW - Radiotherapy, Conformal/instrumentation

KW - Tomography, X-Ray Computed/instrumentation

KW - Total Quality Management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349310249&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012

DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 19695725

SN - 0167-8140

VL - 93

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

IS - 1

ER -

Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this