Citations

Showing 10 of 108081 citations.

An organ and effective dose study of XVI and OBI cone‐beam CT systems
Hyer, Daniel E. , Serago, Christopher F., Li, Jonathan G. , Hintenlang, David E., Kim, Siyong , Hyer, Daniel

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 181-197

10.1120/jacmp.v11i2.3183 | PMID 20592702 Get It

The main purpose of this work was to quantify patient organ doses from the two kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems currently available on medical linear accelerators, namely the X‐ray Volumetric Imager (XVI, Elekta Oncology Systems) and the On‐Board Imager (OBI, Varian Medical Systems). Organ dose measurements were performed using a fiber‐optic coupled (FOC) dosimetry system along with an adult male anthropomorphic phantom for three different clinically relevant scan sites: head, chest, and pelvis. The FOC dosimeter was previously characterized at diagnostic energies by Hyer et al. [Med Phys 2009;36(5):1711–16] and a total uncertainty of approximately 4% was found for in‐phantom dose measurements. All scans were performed using current manufacturer‐installed clinical protocols and appropriate bow‐tie filters. A comparison of image quality between these manufacturer‐installed protocols was also performed using a Catphan 440 image quality phantom. Results indicated that for the XVI, the dose to the lens of the eye (1.07 mGy) was highest in a head scan, thyroid dose (19.24 mGy) was highest in a chest scan, and gonad dose (29 mGy) was highest in a pelvis scan. For the OBI, brain dose (3.01 mGy) was highest in a head scan, breast dose (5.34 mGy) was highest in a chest scan, and gonad dose (34.61 mGy) was highest in a pelvis scan. Image quality measurements demonstrated that the OBI provided superior image quality for all protocols, with both better spatial resolution and low‐contrast detectability. The measured organ doses were also used to calculate a reference male effective dose to allow further comparison of the two machines and imaging protocols. The head, chest, and pelvis scans yielded effective doses of 0.04, 7.15, and 3.73 mSv for the XVI, and 0.12, 1.82, and 4.34 mSv for the OBI, respectively.PACS number: 87.57.uq
An anthropomorphic beating heart phantom for cardiac X‐ray CT imaging evaluation
Boltz, Thomas, Pavlicek, William , Paden, Robert G., Renno, Markus S. , Jensen, Angela , Akay, Metin

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 191-199

10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.3129 | PMID 20160697 Get It

The current work describes an anthropomorphic beating heart phantom constructed as a tool for the assessment of technological advances in cardiac X‐ray computed tomography (CT). The phantom is comprised of a thorax, a compressor system, an ECG system, a beating heart with tortuous coronary arteries, and the option to add or remove pathologies such as aberrant beats, stents, and plaques. Initial trials with the phantom have shown its utility to assess temporal resolution, spatial resolution, radiation dose, iodine contrast, stents, and plaques.PACS numbers: 87.59.Fm, 87.57.Ce
Calculating percent depth dose with the electron pencil‐beam redefinition algorithm
Price, Michael , Hogstrom, Kenneth R., White, R. Allen, Bloch, C. , Boyd, Robert A., Antolak, John A.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 61-75

10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2443 | PMID 17592466 Get It

In the present work, we investigated the accuracy of the electron pencil‐beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) in calculating central‐axis percent depth dose in water for rectangular fields. The PBRA energy correction factor C(E) was determined so that PBRA‐calculated percent depth dose best matched the percent depth dose measured in water. The hypothesis tested was that a method can be implemented into the PBRA that will enable the algorithm to calculate central‐axis percent depth dose in water at a 100‐cm source‐to‐surface distance (SSD) with an accuracy of 2% or 1‐mm distance to agreement for rectangular field sizes cm. Preliminary investigations showed that C(E), determined using a single percent depth dose for a large field (that is, having side‐scatter equilibrium), was insufficient for the PBRA to accurately calculate percent depth dose for all square fields cm. Therefore, two alternative methods for determining C(E) were investigated. In Method 1, C(E), modeled as a polynomial in energy, was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to individual rectangular‐field percent depth doses. In Method 2, C(E) for square fields, described by a polynomial in both energy and side of square W [that is, ], was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to measured percent depth dose for a small number of square fields. Using the function C(E, W), C(E) for other square fields was determined, and C(E) for rectangular field sizes was determined using the geometric mean of C(E) for the two measured square fields of the dimension of the rectangle (square root method). Using both methods, PBRA calculations were evaluated by comparison with measured square‐field and derived rectangular‐field percent depth doses at 100‐cm SSD for the Siemens Primus radiotherapy accelerator equipped with a ‐cm applicator at 10 MeV and 15 MeV. To improve the fit of C(E) and C(E, W) to the electron component of percent depth dose, it was necessary to modify the PBRA's photon depth dose model to include dose buildup. Results showed that, using both methods, the PBRA was able to predict percent depth dose within criteria for all square and rectangular fields. Results showed that second‐ or third‐order polynomials in energy (Methods 1 and 2) and in field size (Method 2) were typically required. Although the time for dose calculation using Method 1 is approximately twice that using Method 2, we recommend that Method 1 be used for clinical implementation of the PBRA because it is more accurate (most measured depth doses predicted within approximately 1%) and simpler to implement.PACS number: 87.53.Fs
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease
Stone, Gregg W. , Bhatt, Deepak L. , Gersh, Bernard J. , Bhatt, Deepak L

Mayo Clinic

Circulation | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 135 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 819-821

10.1161/circulationaha.116.025263 | PMID 28242636 Get It

Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols
Grimes, Joshua, Vrieze, Thomas J., McCollough, C, Leng, Shuai , Zhang, Yi

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 17 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 523-533

10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6164 | PMID 27685112 Get It

Protocol review is important to decrease the risk of patient injury and increase the consistency of CT image quality. A large volume of CT protocols makes manual review labor‐intensive, error‐prone, and costly. To address these challenges, we have developed a software system for automatically managing and monitoring CT protocols on a frequent basis. This article describes our experiences in the implementation and evaluation of this protocol monitoring system. In particular, we discuss various strategies for addressing each of the steps in our protocol‐monitoring workflow, which are: maintaining an accurate set of master protocols, retrieving protocols from the scanners, comparing scanner protocols to master protocols, reviewing flagged differences between the scanner and master protocols, and updating the scanner and/or master protocols. In our initial evaluation focusing only on abdomen and pelvis protocols, we detected 309 modified protocols in a 24‐week trial period. About one‐quarter of these modified protocols were determined to contain inappropriate (i.e., erroneous) protocol parameter modifications that needed to be corrected on the scanner. The most frequently affected parameter was the series description, which was inappropriately modified 47 times. Two inappropriate modifications were made to the tube current, which is particularly important to flag as this parameter impacts both radiation dose and image quality. The CT protocol changes detected in this work provide strong motivation for the use of an automated CT protocol quality control system to ensure protocol accuracy and consistency.PACS number(s): 87.57.Q‐
A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT
Kawrakow, I., Olsen, Jeff, Parikh, Parag J., Wooten, O., Du, D. , Mutic, Sasa , Hu, Yanle , Feng, Yuan , Noel, Camille E.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 17 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 441-460

10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5820 | PMID 27074465 Get It

On‐board magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance during radiation therapy offers the potential for more accurate treatment delivery. To utilize the real‐time image information, a crucial prerequisite is the ability to successfully segment and track regions of interest (ROI). The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of different segmentation algorithms using motion images (4 frames per second) acquired using a MR image‐guided radiotherapy (MR‐IGRT) system. Manual contours of the kidney, bladder, duodenum, and a liver tumor by an experienced radiation oncologist were used as the ground truth for performance evaluation. Besides the manual segmentation, images were automatically segmented using thresholding, fuzzy k‐means (FKM), k‐harmonic means (KHM), and reaction‐diffusion level set evolution (RD‐LSE) algorithms, as well as the tissue tracking algorithm provided by the ViewRay treatment planning and delivery system (VR‐TPDS). The performance of the five algorithms was evaluated quantitatively by comparing with the manual segmentation using the Dice coefficient and target registration error (TRE) measured as the distance between the centroid of the manual ROI and the centroid of the automatically segmented ROI. All methods were able to successfully segment the bladder and the kidney, but only FKM, KHM, and VR‐TPDS were able to segment the liver tumor and the duodenum. The performance of the thresholding, FKM, KHM, and RD‐LSE algorithms degraded as the local image contrast decreased, whereas the performance of the VP‐TPDS method was nearly independent of local image contrast due to the reference registration algorithm. For segmenting high‐contrast images (i.e., kidney), the thresholding method provided the best speed ( ) with a satisfying accuracy ( ). When the image contrast was low, the VR‐TPDS method had the best automatic contour. Results suggest an image quality determination procedure before segmentation and a combination of different methods for optimal segmentation with the on‐board MR‐IGRT system. PACS number(s): 87.57.nm, 87.57.N‐, 87.61.Tg
Technical Note: Insertion of digital lesions in the projection domain for dual‐source, dual‐energy CT
Ferrero, Andrea , Chen, Baiyu , Li, Zhoubo , Yu, Lifeng , McCollough, Cynthia, Yu, Lifeng , McCollough, Cynthia H.

Mayo Clinic

Medical Physics | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 1655-1660

10.1002/mp.12185 | PMID 28241103 Get It

PurposeTo compare algorithms performing material decomposition and classification in dual‐energy CT, it is desirable to know the ground truth of the lesion to be analyzed in real patient data. In this work, we developed and validated a framework to insert digital lesions of arbitrary chemical composition into patient projection data acquired on a dual‐source, dual‐energy CT system.MethodsA model that takes into account beam‐hardening effects was developed to predict the CT number of objects with known chemical composition. The model utilizes information about the x‐ray energy spectra, the patient/phantom attenuation, and the x‐ray detector energy response. The beam‐hardening model was validated on samples of iodine (I) and calcium (Ca) for a second‐generation dual‐source, dual‐energy CT scanner for all tube potentials available and a wide range of patient sizes. The seven most prevalent mineral components of renal stones were modeled and digital stones were created with CT numbers computed for each patient/phantom size and x‐ray energy spectra using the developed beam‐hardening model. Each digital stone was inserted in the dual‐energy projection data of a water phantom scanned on a dual‐source scanner and reconstructed with the routine algorithms in use in our practice. The geometry of the forward projection for dual‐energy data was validated by comparing CT number accuracy and high‐contrast resolution of simulated dual‐energy CT data of the ACR phantom with experimentally acquired data.ResultsThe beam‐hardening model and forward projection method accurately predicted the CT number of I and Ca over a wide range of tube potentials and phantom sizes. The images reconstructed after the insertion of digital kidney stones were consistent with the images reconstructed from the scanner, and the CT number ratios for different kidney stone types were consistent with data in the literature. A sample application of the proposed tool was also demonstrated.ConclusionA framework was developed and validated for the creation of digital objects of known mineral composition, and for inserting the digital objects into projection data from a commercial dual‐source, dual‐energy CT scanner. Among other applications, it will allow a systematic investigation of the impact of scan and reconstruction parameters on kidney stone dual‐energy properties under rigorously controlled conditions.
Association Between Telomere Length and Risk of Cancer and Non-Neoplastic Diseases
Haycock, Philip , Burgess, Stephen , Nounu, Aayah , Zheng, Jie , Okoli, George N. , Wade, Kaitlin H. , Timpson, Nicholas J. , Evans, David M. , Willeit, Peter , Aviv, Abraham , Gaunt, Tom R. , Hemani, Gibran , Mangino, Massimo , Ellis, Hayley, Kurian, Kathreena M. , Pooley, Karen A. , Eeles, Rosalind A. , Lee, Jeffrey E. , Fang, Shenying , Chen, Wei V., Law, Matthew H. , Bowdler, Lisa, Iles, Mark M. , Worrall, Bradford B. , Markus, Hugh S. , Hung, Rayjean J., Amos, Chris, Thompson, Deborah J. , O’Mara, Tracy A. , Wolpin, Brian M. , Ámundadóttir, Laufey T. , Trichopoulou, Antonia , Onland‐Moret, N. Charlotte , Lund, Eiliv , Canzian, Federico , Severi, Gianluca , Overvad, Kim , Gunter, Marc J. , ­Tumino, ­Rosario , Svenson, Ulrika, Rij, André van, Baas, Annette F., Bown, Matthew J. , Samani, Nilesh J. , t’Hof, Femke N.G. van, Tromp, Gerard , Jones, Gregory T. , Kuivaniemi, Helena , Elmore, James R. , Johansson, Mattias , McKay, James , Scélo, Ghislaine , Carreras‐Torres, Robert , Gaborieau, Valérie , Brennan, Paul , Bracci, Paige M. , Olson, Sara H. , Gallinger, Steven , Li, Donghui , Petersen, Gloria M. , Han, Jiali , Abnet, Christian C. , Freedman, Neal D. , Aben, Katja K.H. , Kiemeney, Lambertus A. , Vermeulen, Sita H. , Walsh, Kyle M. , Wrensch, Margaret , Rice, Terri, Turnbull, Clare , Litchfield, Kevin , Paternoster, Lavinia , Standl, Marie , Mijatovic, Vladan, Sapkota, Yadav , Zondervan, Krina T. , Nyholt, Dale R. , Heel, David A. van , Arking, Dan E. , Ashar, Foram N., Sotoodehnia, Nona, Woo, Daniel , Comeau, Mary E. , Brown, W. Mark , Silverman, Edwin K. , Hokanson, John E. , Hui, Jennie , Thompson, Philip J. , Morrison, Alanna C. , Smith, Nicholas L. , Christiano, Angela M. , Petukhova, Lynn , Betz, Regina C. , Zhang, Xuejun, Zhu, Caihong, Langefeld, Carl D. , Thompson, Susan D. , Wang, Feijie , Fingerlin, Tasha E. , Rotter, Jerome I. , Cotch, Mary Frances , Jensen, Richard A., Munz, Matthias , Dommisch, Henrik , Schäefer, Arne S. , Ollila, Hanna M. , Hillary, Ryan P. , Zeng, Chenjie , Zheng, Wei , Shu, Xiao-Ou , Reis, André , Uebe, Steffen , Hüffmeier, Ulrike , Kawamura, Yoshiya, Otowa, Takeshi , Sasaki, Tsukasa, Dávila, Sonia , Siminovitch, Katherine A. , Bei, Jin‐Xin , Zeng, Yi‐Xin , Chen, Bowang , Franke, Andre, Fischer, Annegret, Ellinghaus, David , Flores, Carlos , Noth, Imre , Ma, Shwu‐Fan , Foo, Jia Nee , Liu, Jianjun , Cox, David G. , Delattre, Olivier , Mirabeau, Olivier , Skibola, Christine F., Tang, Clara Sze-Man , Garcia-Barceló, Mercè, Su, Wen-Hui , Chang, Yu‐Sun , Wade, Tracey , Lee, Chaeyoung , Kubo, Michiaki , Cha, Pei-Chieng , Nakamura, Yusuke, Levy, Daniel , Hunt, S. E., Spector, Tim D. , Soranzo, Nicole , Barr, R. Graham, Kahali, Bratati , Speliotes, Elizabeth K. , Yerges-Armstrong, Laura M. , Cheng, Ching‐Yu , Wong, Tien Yin , Fogh, Isabella , Powell, John , Rice, Kenneth , Relton, Caroline L. , Martin, Richard M. , Smith, George Davey , Hung, Rayjean J. , Bowden, Jack , Yang, Qiong , Spurdle, Amanda B. , Stolzenberg‐Solomon, Rachael Z. , Duell, Eric J. , Neale, Rachel Ε. , Risch, Harvey A. , Klein, Alison P. , Taylor, Philip R. , Maris, John M. , Wiencke, John K. , Abecasis, Gonçalo R. , SanGiovanni, John Paul , Li, Yong , Low, Siew‐Kee , Montgomery, Grant W. , Hunt, Karen A. , Rosand, Jonathan M. , Cho, Michael H. , Ferreira, Manuel A. R. , Felix, Janine F. , Fan, Xing Hua , Xu, Lin , Schwartz, David A. , Han, Fang , Albagha, Omar , Ralston, Stuart H. , Sasaki, Tsukasa, Hibberd, Martin Lloyd , Xie, Gang , Försti, Asta , Landi, Stefano , Ellinghaus, David , Kim, Jong‐Won , Chang, Kai‐Ping , Martin, Nicholas G. , Gordon, Scott D. , Kimura, Masayuki , Hwang, Shih‐Jen , Manichaikul, Ani , Barr, R. Graham, Jonas, Jost B , Lin, Kuang , Amundadottir, Laufey , Kiemeney, Lambertus A , Eeles, Rosalind A , van Heel, David A , Gunter, Marc J , Canzian, Federico , Hung, Rayjean J , O'Mara, Tracy A , Abnet, Christian C , Haycock, Philip , Tumino, Rosario , Han, Jiali , Martin, Richard M , Severi, Gianluca , Reis, André , Zheng, Wei , Rotter, Jerome I , Carreras-Torres, Robert , Law, Matthew H , Davey Smith, George , Johansson, Mattias , Iles, Mark M , Morrison, Alanna C , Rice, Ken , Freedman, Neal D , Foo, Jia Nee , Levy, Daniel , Rice, Kenneth , Sapkota, Yadav , Wong, Tien Y , Liu, Jing

Mayo Clinic

JAMA Oncology | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 3 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 636

10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5945 | PMID 28241208 Get It

Automatic polyp detection in colonoscopy videos
Yuan, Zijie, Izadyyazdanabadi, Mohammadhassan , Mokkapati, Divya, Panvalkar, Rujuta, Shin, J. , Tajbakhsh, Nima , Gurudu, Suryakanth, Liang, Jianming , Shin, Jae Y.

Mayo Clinic

SPIE Proceedings | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 10133 | Issue: No issue available | Pages: 101332K

10.1117/12.2254671 Get It

Desiderosmia (olfactory craving): A novel symptom associated with iron deficiency anemia
Hansen, Bryar R. , Bottner, Wayne A., Ravindran, Aishwarya , DeJesus, Ramona S. , Go, Ronald S. , DeJesus, Ramona, Go, Ronald S , Ravindran, Aishwarya

Mayo Clinic

American Journal of Hematology | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 92 | Issue: 6 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/ajh.24706 | PMID 28240803 Get It