An assessment of image distortion and CT number accuracy within a wide-bore CT extended field of view

Scientific Paper

Abstract

Although wide bore computed tomography (CT) scanners provide increased space for patients, the scan field of view (sFOV) remains considerably smaller than the bore size. Consequently, patient anatomy which spans beyond the sFOV is truncated and the information is lost. As a solution, some manufacturers provide the capacity to reconstruct CT images from a partial dataset at an extended field of view (eFOV). To assess spatial distortion within this eFOV three phantoms were considered a 30 × 30 × 20 cm3 slab of solid water, the Gammex electron density CT phantom and a female anthropomorphic phantom. For each phantom, scans were taken centrally within the sFOV as a reference image and with the phantom edge extended at 1 cm intervals from 0 to 5 cm beyond the sFOV into the eFOV. To assess CT number accuracy various tissue equivalent materials were scanned in the eFOV and resulting CT numbers were compared to inserts scanned within the sFOV. For all phantom geometries, objects within the eFOV were geometrically overestimated with elongation of phantom shapes into the eFOV. The percentage increase in size ranged from 0.22 to 15.94 % over all phantoms considered. The difference between eFOV and sFOV CT numbers was dependent upon insert density. The eFOV underestimated CT numbers in the range of −127 to −230 HU for soft tissue densities and −278 to −640 for bone densities. This trend reversed for low tissue densities with the CT numbers in the eFOV being overestimated by 100–130 HU for lung equivalent inserts. Initial correlation between eFOV and sFOV CT numbers was seen and a correction function was successfully applied to better estimate the CT number representative of that seen within the sFOV.

Keywords

Extended field of view Computed tomography Geometric distortion CT number 

References

  1. 1.
    McGee K, Das I, Sims C (1995) Evaluation of digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) used for clinical radiotherapy: a phantom study. Med Phys 22:1815–1827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garcia-Ramirez J, Mutic S, Dempsey J, Low D, Purdy J (2002) Performance evaluation of an 85-cm-bore x-ray computed tomography scanner designed for radiation oncology and comparison with current diagnostic CT scanners. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:1123–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sasa M, Palta J, Butker E, Das I, Huq MS, Loo LN, Salter BJ, McCollough CH, Van Dyk J (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(10):2762–2792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang J, Sehgal V, He B, Roa D, Martin M, Al-Ghazi M (2010) Comprehensive clinical commissioning and quality assurance procedures of a big bore CT simulator in a radiation oncology department. Med Phys 37:3152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu V, Podgorsak M, Tran T, Malhotra H, Wang I (2011) Dosimetric impact of image artifact from a wide-bore CT scanner in radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 38(7):4451–4463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Centre for Evidence-Based Purchasing (2009) Comparative specifications: wide bore CT scanners. Report no. CEP 08029. NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Centre for Evidence-Based Purchasing (2006) Wide bore CT scanner comparison: report 06014. NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li B, Deng J, Lonn A, Hsieh J (2012) An enhanced reconstruction algorithm to extend CT scan field-of-view with z-axis consistency constraint. Med Phys 39(10):6028–6034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Schwarz K (2000) Efficient correction for CT image artifacts caused by objects extending outside the scan field of view. Med Phys 27(1):39–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Centre for Evidence-Based Purchasing (2005) GE LightSpeed RT CT scanner technical evaluation. NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zamyatin A, Nakanishi S (2007) Extension of the reconstruction field of view and truncation correction using sinogram decomposition. Med Phys 34(5):1593–1604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsieh J, Chao E, Thibault J, Grekowicz B, Horst A, McOlash S, Myers T (2004) A novel reconstruction algorithm to extend the CT scan field-of-view. Med Phys 31(9):2385–2391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender W (2012) Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med 28:94–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hatton J, McCurdy B, Greer P (2009) Cone beam computerized tomography: the effect of calibration of the Hounsfield unit number to electron density on dose calculation accuracy for adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 54:329–346Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim Y, Tome W, Bal M, McNutt T, Spies L (2006) The impact of dental metal artifacts on head and neck IMRT dose distributions. Radiother Oncol 79:198–202Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korn A, Fenchel M, Bender B, Danz S, Hauser TK, Ketelsen D, Flohr T, Claussen CD, Heuschmid M, Ernemann U, Brodoefel H (2012) Iterative reconstruction in head CT: image quality of routine and low-dose protocols in comparison with standard filtered back-projection. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33(2):218–224Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitsumori L, Shuman W, Busey J, Kolokythas O, Koprowicz K (2012) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose. Eur Radiol 1(22):138–143Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nuyts J, DeMan B, Dupont P, Defrise M, Suetens P, Mortelmans L (1998) Iterative reconstruction for helical CT: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol 43(4):729–737Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Beeksma
    • 1
  • D. Truant
    • 1
  • L. Holloway
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • S. Arumugam
    • 1
  1. 1.Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy CentresIngham InstituteLiverpoolAustralia
  2. 2.School of Physics, Institute of Medical PhysicsUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Medical Radiation PhysicsUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  4. 4.South Western Sydney Clinical SchoolUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations