Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 93, Issue 1 , Pages 1-7, October 2009

Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study

  • Markus Stock

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University Vienna, Austria
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.
  • ,
  • Marlies Pasler

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University Vienna, Austria
  • ,
  • Wolfgang Birkfellner

      Affiliations

    • Center for Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Medical University Vienna, Austria
  • ,
  • Peter Homolka

      Affiliations

    • Center for Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Medical University Vienna, Austria
  • ,
  • Richard Poetter

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University Vienna, Austria
  • ,
  • Dietmar Georg

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University Vienna, Austria

Received 5 February 2009; received in revised form 29 May 2009; accepted 16 July 2009. published online 20 August 2009.

Abstract 

Introduction

Our aim was to implement standards for quality assurance of IGRT devices used in our department and to compare their performances with that of a CT simulator.

Materials and methods

We investigated image quality parameters for three devices over a period of 16months. A multislice CT was used as a benchmark and results related to noise, spatial resolution, low contrast visibility (LCV) and uniformity were compared with a cone beam CT (CBCT) at a linac and simulator.

Results

All devices performed well in terms of LCV and, in fact, exceeded vendor specifications. MTF was comparable between CT and linac CBCT. Integral nonuniformity was, on average, 0.002 for the CT and 0.006 for the linac CBCT. Uniformity, LCV and MTF varied depending on the protocols used for the linac CBCT. Contrast-to-noise ratio was an average of 51% higher for the CT than for the linac and simulator CBCT. No significant time trend was observed and tolerance limits were implemented.

Discussion

Reasonable differences in image quality between CT and CBCT were observed. Further research and development are necessary to increase image quality of commercially available CBCT devices in order for them to serve the needs for adaptive and/or online planning.

Keywords: IGRT, Quality assurance, Image quality, Long-term stability, CBCT

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(09)00430-7

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012

Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 93, Issue 1 , Pages 1-7, October 2009