Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of dual energy CT and iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) for artefact reduction in radiation therapy

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metal artefacts pose a common problem in single energy computed tomography (SECT) images used for radiotherapy. Virtual monoenergetic (VME) images constructed with dual energy computed tomography (DECT) scans can be used to reduce beam hardening artefacts. Dual energy metal artefact reduction is compared and combined with iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) to determine optimal imaging strategies for patients with metal prostheses. SECT and DECT scans were performed on a Siemens Somatom AS-64 Slice CT scanner. Images were acquired of a modified CIRS pelvis phantom with 6, 12, 20 mm diameter stainless steel rods and VME images reconstructed at 100, 120, 140 and 190 keV. These were post-reconstructed with and without the iMAR algorithm. Artefact reduction was measured using: (1) the change in Hounsfield Unit (HU) with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR) for 4 regions of interest; (2) the total number of artefact pixels, defined as pixels with a difference (between images with metal rod and without) exceeding a threshold; (3) the difference in the mean pixel intensity of the artefact pixels. DECT, SECT + iMAR and DECT + iMAR were compared. Both SECT + iMAR and DECT + iMAR offer successful MAR for phantom simulating unilateral hip prosthesis. DECT gives minimal artefact reduction over iMAR alone. Quantitative metrics are advantageous for MAR analysis but have limitations that leave room for metric development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mutic S, Palta JR, Butker EK et al (2003) Quality assurance for computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No 66. Med Phys 30:2762–2792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bar E, Cisek P, Cwikla J, et al (2014) SOMATOM sessions radiation therapy supplement. Siemens 24

  3. Andersson KM, Nowik P, Persliden J et al (2015) Metal artefact reduction in CT imaging of hip prostheses—an evaluation of commercial techniques provided by four vendors. Br J Radiol 88:20140473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hegazy MAA, Eldib ME, Hernandez D et al (2018) Dual-energy-based metal segmentation for metal artifact reduction in dental computed tomography. Med Phys 45:714–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goo HW, Goo JM (2017) Dual-energy CT: new horizon in medical imaging. Korean J Radiol 18:555–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Giantsoudi D, De Man B, Verburg J et al (2017) Metal artifacts in computed tomography for radiation therapy planning: dosimetric effects and impact of metal artifact reduction. Phys Med Biol 62:R49–R80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Elmpt W, Landry G, Das M, Verhaegen F (2016) Dual energy CT in radiotherapy: current applications and future outlook. Radiother Oncol 119:137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K et al (2011) Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 21:1424–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Agrawal MD, Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM et al (2014) Oncologic applications of dual-energy CT in the abdomen. Radiographics 34:589–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Simons D, Kachelrieß M, Schlemmer H-P (2014) Recent developments of dual-energy CT in oncology. Eur Radiol 24:930–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Meyer E, Raupach R, Lell M et al (2010) Normalized metal artifact reduction (NMAR) in computed tomography. Med Phys 37:5482–5493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Meyer E, Raupach R, Lell M et al (2012) Frequency split metal artifact reduction (FSMAR) in computed tomography. Med Phys 39:1904–1916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sheen H, Shin H-B, Cho S et al (2017) Feasibility of dual-energy computed tomography in radiation therapy planning. J Korean Phys Soc 71:1056–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwahofer A, Bär E, Kuchenbecker S et al (2015) The application of metal artifact reduction (MAR) in CT scans for radiation oncology by monoenergetic extrapolation with a DECT scanner. Z Med Phys 25:314–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bär E, Schwahofer A, Kuchenbecker S, Häring P (2015) Improving radiotherapy planning in patients with metallic implants using the iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) algorithm. Biomed Phys Eng Express 1:25206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li H, Noel C, Chen H et al (2012) Clinical evaluation of a commercial orthopedic metal artifact reduction tool for CT simulations in radiation therapy. Med Phys 39:7507–7517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Morsbach F, Bickelhaupt S, Wanner GA et al (2013) Reduction of metal artifacts from hip prostheses on CT images of the pelvis: value of iterative reconstructions. Radiology 268:237–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang F, Xue H, Yang X et al (2014) Reduction of metal artifacts from alloy hip prostheses in computer tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:828–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou C, Zhao YE, Luo S et al (2011) Monoenergetic imaging of dual-energy CT reduces artifacts from implanted metal orthopedic devices in patients with factures. Acad Radiol 18:1252–1257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bongers MN, Schabel C, Thomas C et al (2015) Comparison and combination of dual-energy- and iterative-based metal artefact reduction on hip prosthesis and dental implants. PLoS ONE 10:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yagi M, Ueguchi T, Koizumi M, et al (2013) Gemstone spectral imaging: determination of CT to ED conversion curves for radiotherapy treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14:173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baron B, De Marzi L, Pierrat N (2017) Dual energy CT: iterative metal artifact reduction for radiotherapy. Phys Medica 44:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Reft C, Alecu R, Das IJ et al (2003) Dosimetric considerations for patients with HIP prostheses undergoing pelvic irradiation. Report of the AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 63. Med Phys 30:1162–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Axente M, Paidi A, Von Eyben R et al (2015) Clinical evaluation of the iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm for CT simulation in radiotherapy Clinical evaluation of the iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm for CT simulation in radiotherapy. Med Phys 42:1170–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Katsura M, Sato J, Akahane M et al (2018) Current and novel techniques for metal artifact reduction at CT: practical guide for radiologists. Radiographics 38(2):450–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No financial funding was provided for this study. An evaluation licence for iMAR was provided by Siemens, in part to perform this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    P. Lim, J. Barber & J. Sykes

  2. Radiation Oncology, Blacktown Hospital, Sydney West Cancer Network, Sydney, Australia

    J. Barber & J. Sykes

Authors
  1. P. Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Sykes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Lim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lim, P., Barber, J. & Sykes, J. Evaluation of dual energy CT and iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) for artefact reduction in radiation therapy. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 42, 1025–1032 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00801-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00801-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation