Koenig, Thomas W.

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.

PurposeTalbot‐Lau grating interferometry enables the use of polychromatic x‐ray sources, extending the range of potential applications amenable to phase contrast imaging. However, these sources introduce beam hardening effects not only from the samples but also from the gratings. As a result, grating inhomogeneities due to manufacturing imperfections can cause spectral nonuniformity artifacts when used with polychromatic sources. Consequently, the different energy dependencies of absorption, phase, and visibility contrasts impose challenges that so far have limited the achievable image quality. The purpose of this work was to develop and validate a correction strategy for grating‐based x‐ray imaging that accounts for beam hardening generated from both the imaged object and the gratings.MethodsThe proposed two‐variable polynomial expansion strategy was inspired by work performed to address beam hardening from a primary modulator. To account for the multicontrast nature of grating interferometry, this approach was extended to each contrast to obtain three sets of correction coefficients, which were determined empirically from a calibration scan. The method’s feasibility was demonstrated using a tabletop Talbot‐Lau grating interferometer micro‐computed tomography (CT) system using CT acquisitions of a water sample and a silicon sample, representing low and high atomic number materials. Spectral artifacts such as cupping and ring artifacts were quantified using mean squared error (MSE) from the beam‐hardening‐free target image and standard deviation within a reconstructed image of the sample. Finally, the model developed using the water sample was applied to a fixated murine lung sample to demonstrate robustness for similar materials.ResultsThe water sample’s absorption CT image was most impacted by spectral artifacts, but following correction to decrease ring artifacts, an 80% reduction in MSE and 57% reduction in standard deviation was observed. The silicon sample created severe artifacts in all contrasts, but following correction, MSE was reduced by 94% in absorption, 96% in phase, and 90% in visibility images. These improvements were due to the removal of ring artifacts for all contrasts and reduced cupping in absorption and phase images and reduced capping in visibility images. When the water calibration coefficients were applied to the lung sample, ring artifacts most prominent in the absorption contrast were eliminated.ConclusionsThe described method, which was developed to remove artifacts in absorption, phase, and normalized visibility micro‐CT images due to beam hardening in the system gratings and imaged object, reduced the MSE by up to 96%. The method depends on calibrations that can be performed on any system and does not require detailed knowledge of the x‐ray spectrum, detector energy response, grating attenuation properties and imperfections, or the geometry and composition of the imaged object.