Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 86, Issue 1 , Pages 20-24, January 2008

A quantitative image quality comparison of four different image guided radiotherapy devices

  • Julia Stützel
  • ,
  • Uwe Oelfke
  • ,
  • Simeon Nill

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Simeon Nill, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Department of Medial Physics (E040), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.

German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Department of Medial Physics, Heidelberg, Germany

Received 25 September 2007; received in revised form 18 October 2007; accepted 21 October 2007. published online 22 November 2007.

Abstract 

Purpose

A study to quantitatively compare the image quality of four different image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices based on phantom measurements with respect to the additional dose delivered to the patient.

Methods

Images of three different head-sized phantoms (diameter 16–18cm) were acquired with the following four IGRT-CT solutions: (i) the Siemens Primatom® single slice fan beam computed tomography (CT) scanner with an acceleration voltage of 130kV, (ii) a Tomotherapy HI-ART II® unit using a fan beam scanner with an energy of 3.5MeV and (iii) the Siemens Artíste® prototype, providing the possibility to perform kV (121kV) and MV (6MV) cone beam (CB) CTs. For each device three scan protocols (named low, normal, high) were selected to yield the same weighted computed tomography dose index (CTDIw). Based on the individual inserts of the different phantoms the image quality achieved with each device at a certain dose level was characterized in terms of homogeneity, spatial resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and electron density-to-CT-number conversion.

Results

Based on the current findings for head-sized phantoms all devices show an electron density-to-CT-number conversion almost independent of the imaging parameters and hence can be suited for treatment planning purposes. The evaluation of the image quality, however, points out clear differences due to the different energies and geometries. The Primatom standard CT scanner shows throughout the best performance, especially for soft tissue contrast and spatial resolution with low imaging doses. Reasonable soft tissue contrast can be obtained with slightly higher doses compared to the CT scanner with the kVCB and the Tomotherapy unit. In order to get similar results with the MVCB system a much higher dose needs to be applied to the patient.

Conclusion

Considering the entire investigations, especially in terms of contrast and spatial resolution, a rough tendency for decreasing image quality can be given: Primatom, Artíste prototype kVCB, Tomotherapy, Artíste prototype MVCB.

Keywords: Tomotherapy, Image quality, kVCBCT, MVCBCT

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0167-8140(07)00539-7

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2007.10.035

Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 86, Issue 1 , Pages 20-24, January 2008