Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27473367›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2016

Evaluation of gantry speed on image quality and imaging dose for 4D cone-beam CT acquisition.

Andrew P Santoso, Kwang H Song, Yujiao Qin, Stephen J Gardner, Chang Liu, Indrin J Chetty, Benjamin Movsas, Munther Ajlouni, Ning Wen

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Quantitative evaluation of 4D Cone beam CT scans with reduced scan time in lung cancer patients.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew P SantosoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA.
Kwang H SongTexas Oncology, Fort Worth, TX, 76104, USA.
Yujiao QinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Stephen J GardnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Chang LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Indrin J ChettyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Benjamin MovsasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Munther AjlouniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Ning WenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA. nwen1@hfhs.org.
Henry Ford Health System · USTexas Oncology · USWayne State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study investigates the effect of gantry speed on 4DCBCT image quality and dose for the Varian On-Board Imager®.

methodsA thoracic 4DCBCT protocol was designed using a 125 kVp spectrum. Image quality parameters were evaluated for 4DCBCT acquisition using Catphan® phantom with real-time position management™ system for gantry speeds varying between 1.0 to 6.0°/s. Superior-inferior motion of the phantom was executed using a sinusoidal waveform with five second period. Scans were retrospectively sorted into 4 phases (CBCT-4 ph) and 10 phases (CBCT-10 ph); average 4DCBCT (CBCT-ave), using all image data from the 4DCBCT acquisitions was also evaluated. The 4DCBCT images were evaluated using the following image quality metrics: spatial resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and uniformity index (UI). Additionally, Hounsfield unit (HU) sensitivity compared to a baseline CBCT and percent differences and RMS errors (RMSE) of excursion were also determined. Imaging dose was evaluated using an IBA CC13 ion chamber placed within CIRS Thorax phantom using the same sinusoidal motion and image acquisition settings as mentioned above.

resultsSpatial resolution decreased linearly from 5.93 to 3.82 lp/cm as gantry speed increased from 1.0 to 6.0°/s. CNR decreased linearly from 4.80 to 1.82 with gantry speed increasing from 1.0 to 6.0°/s, respectively. No noteworthy variations in UI, HU sensitivity, or excursion metrics were observed with changes in gantry speed. Ion chamber dose rates measured ranged from 2.30 (lung) to 5.18 (bone) E-3 cGy/mAs.

conclusionsA quantitative analysis of the Varian OBI's 4DCBCT capabilities was explored. Changing gantry speed changes the number of projections used for reconstruction, affecting both image quality and imaging dose if x-ray tube current is held constant. From the results of this study, a gantry speed between 2 and 3°/s was optimal when considering image quality, dose, and reconstruction time. The future of 4DCBCT clinical utility relies on further investigation of image acquisition and reconstruction optimization.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingCone-Beam Computed TomographyFour-Dimensional Computed TomographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRespirationRespiratory-Gated Imaging TechniquesCone-beam CTDosimetryImage guidanceMotion management

Identifiers

PMID27473367
PMCPMC4966562
OpenAlexW2492380966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.