banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Stochastic formulation of patient positioning using linac-mounted cone beam imaging with prior knowledge
Rent this article for


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematical view of scanned object with the random variables introduced.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Different scenarios for the acquisition of CB projections. (a) Two orthogonal projections, (b) two projections with less than 90°, (c) two small orthogonal arcs, (d) one small arc, (e) full 90°, and (f) full 180° arc with a dense set of projections.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The phantom for the experimental verification. Left: The phantom utilized for the measurements. Right: The schematical overview for the positions of the 1 mm chrome balls. The positions of the balls are calculated with . The balls are shifted along radial -direction to represent the plasticity of the phantom.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

The detected feature positions in a projection at the imaging angle of 210.2° for the 20 phantom setups. The plot is in the -coordinates of the projection coordinate system with the imaging isocenter at its origin, as it is defined in Appendix A (Fig. 6). Each feature is present by a unique symbol, eventually presenting six detection clusters of the 20 phantom setups. Additionally, the 6 feature positions corresponding to the first phantom setup are framed by diamonds and for the second setup by circles. The detected feature positions of one phantom setup for all imaging angles are the input of the MAP estimation.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

The results for the RMSE according to the rule of thumb formula (RoT, solid lines) and to 10 000 numerical simulations for 3D cone beam geometry (3D CB Sim, crosses). Left: The estimation error RMSE depending on the number of projections for different detection errors in reference to the maximal achievable RMSE for . The other parameters are , , and . Right: The estimation error RMSE depending on the number of detectable features for different plasticity parameters of the body . The other parameters are , , and .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Visualization of the coordinate systems used for the derivation of the MAP estimator.


Generic image for table

Statistic evaluation of the accuracy of different imaging schemes of Fig. 2, cases a–f, for 20 setups. Shown are the empirical RMSEs as difference between estimated target position and the target position determined by CB-CT reconstruction along each coordinated for setup . They are defined with and analog for and . Additionally, the theoretical value out of the rule of thumb is presented for comparison (with NA due to high asymmetry of imaging directions).

Generic image for table

Nomenclature of extended and newly introduced estimates and parameters of the prior knowledge. For clarification of the measured values, see Fig. 6.


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Stochastic formulation of patient positioning using linac-mounted cone beam imaging with prior knowledge