Gang, Grace J.

AbstractBackgroundThe detectability performance of a CT scanner is difficult to precisely quantify when nonlinearities are present in reconstruction. An efficient detectability assessment method that is sensitive to small effects of dose and scanner settings is desirable. We previously proposed a method using a search challenge instrument: a phantom is embedded with hundreds of lesions at random locations, and a model observer is used to detect lesions. Preliminary tests in simulation and a prototype showed promising results.PurposeIn this work, we fabricated a full‐size search challenge phantom with design updates, including changes to lesion size, contrast, and number, and studied our implementation by comparing the lesion detectability from a nonprewhitening (NPW) model observer between different reconstructions at different exposure levels, and by estimating the instrument sensitivity to detect changes in dose.MethodsDesigned to fit into QRM anthropomorphic phantoms, our search challenge phantom is a cylindrical insert 10 cm wide and 4 cm thick, embedded with 12 000 lesions (nominal width of 0.6 mm, height of 0.8 mm, and contrast of −350 HU), and was fabricated using PixelPrint, a 3D printing technique. The insert was scanned alone at a high dose to assess printing accuracy. To evaluate lesion detectability, the insert was placed in a QRM thorax phantom and scanned from 50 to 625 mAs with increments of 25 mAs, once per exposure level, and the average of all exposure levels was used as high‐dose reference. Scans were reconstructed with three different settings: filtered‐backprojection (FBP) with Br40 and Br59, and Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction (SAFIRE) with strength level 5 and Br59 kernel. An NPW model observer was used to search for lesions, and detection performance of different settings were compared using area under the exponential transform of free response ROC curve (AUC). Using propagation of uncertainty, the sensitivity to changes in dose was estimated by the percent change in exposure due to one standard deviation of AUC, measured from 5 repeat scans at 100, 200, 300, and 400 mAs.ResultsThe printed insert lesions had an average position error of 0.20 mm compared to printing reference. As the exposure level increases from 50 mAs to 625 mAs, the lesion detectability AUCs increase from 0.38 to 0.92, 0.42 to 0.98, and 0.41 to 0.97 for FBP Br40, FBP Br59, and SAFIRE Br59, respectively, with a lower rate of increase at higher exposure level. FBP Br59 performed best with AUC 0.01 higher than SAFIRE Br59 on average and 0.07 higher than FBP Br40 (all P < 0.001). The standard deviation of AUC was less than 0.006, and the sensitivity to detect changes in mAs was within 2% for FBP Br59.ConclusionsOur 3D‐printed search challenge phantom with 12 000 submillimeter lesions, together with an NPW model observer, provide an efficient CT detectability assessment method that is sensitive to subtle effects in reconstruction and is sensitive to small changes in dose.

AbstractThis report reviews the image acquisition and reconstruction characteristics of C‐arm Cone Beam Computed Tomography (C‐arm CBCT) systems and provides guidance on quality control of C‐arm systems with this volumetric imaging capability. The concepts of 3D image reconstruction, geometric calibration, image quality, and dosimetry covered in this report are also pertinent to CBCT for Image‐Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT). However, IGRT systems introduce a number of additional considerations, such as geometric alignment of the imaging at treatment isocenter, which are beyond the scope of the charge to the task group and the report.Section 1 provides an introduction to C‐arm CBCT systems and reviews a variety of clinical applications. Section 2 briefly presents nomenclature specific or unique to these systems. A short review of C‐arm fluoroscopy quality control (QC) in relation to 3D C‐arm imaging is given in Section 3. Section 4 discusses system calibration, including geometric calibration and uniformity calibration. A review of the unique approaches and challenges to 3D reconstruction of data sets acquired by C‐arm CBCT systems is give in Section 5. Sections 6 and 7 go in greater depth to address the performance assessment of C‐arm CBCT units. First, Section 6 describes testing approaches and phantoms that may be used to evaluate image quality (spatial resolution and image noise and artifacts) and identifies several factors that affect image quality. Section 7 describes both free‐in‐air and in‐phantom approaches to evaluating radiation dose indices.The methodologies described for assessing image quality and radiation dose may be used for annual constancy assessment and comparisons among different systems to help medical physicists determine when a system is not operating as expected. Baseline measurements taken either at installation or after a full preventative maintenance service call can also provide valuable data to help determine whether the performance of the system is acceptable. Collecting image quality and radiation dose data on existing phantoms used for CT image quality and radiation dose assessment, or on newly developed phantoms, will inform the development of performance criteria and standards. Phantom images are also useful for identifying and evaluating artifacts. In particular, comparing baseline data with those from current phantom images can reveal the need for system calibration before image artifacts are detected in clinical practice. Examples of artifacts are provided in Sections 4, 5, and 6.