Schueler, Beth

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.

PreambleThe American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: (1) Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. (2) Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

AbstractCareful protocol selection is required during intraoperative three‐dimensional (3D) imaging for spine surgery to manage patient radiation dose and achieve clinical image quality. Radiation dose and image quality of a Medtronic O‐arm commonly used during spine surgery, and a Philips hybrid operating room equipped with XperCT C‐arm 3D cone‐beam CT (hCBCT) are compared. The mobile O‐arm (mCBCT) offers three different radiation dose settings (low, standard, and high), for four different patient sizes (small, medium, large, and extra large). The patient's radiation dose rate is constant during the entire 3D scan. In contrast, C‐CBCT spine imaging uses three different field of views (27, 37, and 48 cm) using automatic exposure control (AEC) that modulates the patient's radiation dose rate during the 3D scan based on changing patient thickness. hCBCT uses additional x‐ray beam filtration. Small, medium, and large trunk phantoms designed to mimic spine and soft tissue were imaged to assess radiation dose and image quality of the two systems. The estimated measured “patient” dose for the small, medium, and large phantoms imaged by the mCBCT considering all the dose settings ranged from 9.4–27.6 mGy, 8.9–33.3 mGy, and 13.8–40.6 mGy, respectively. The “patient” dose values for the same phantoms imaged with hCBCT were 2.8–4.6 mGy, 5.7–10.0 mGy, and 11.0–15.2 mGy. The CNR for the small, medium, and large phantoms was 2.9 to 3.7, 2.0 to 3.0, and 2.5 to 2.6 times higher with the hCBCT system, respectively. Hounsfield unit accuracy, noise, and uniformity of hCBCT exceeded the performance of the mCBCT; spatial resolution was comparable. Added x‐ray beam filtration and AEC capability achieved clinical image quality for intraoperative spine surgery at reduced radiation dose to the patient in comparison to a reference O‐arm system without these capabilities.