1887
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.
oa
Dose reduction using a dynamic, piecewise-linear attenuator
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4862079
1.
1. M. Gies, W. A. Kalender, H. Wolf, C. Suess, and M. T. Madsen, “Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies,” Med. Phys. 26, 22352247 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598779
2.
2. W. A. Kalender, H. Wolf, and C. Suess, “Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements,” Med. Phys. 26, 22482253 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598738
3.
3. J. Hsieh, Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances (Society of Photo Optical, 2003).
4.
4. T. G. Schmidt, R. Fahrig, N. J. Pelc, and E. G. Solomon, “An inverse-geometry volumetric CT system with a large-area scanned source: A feasibility study,” Med. Phys. 31, 26232627 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1786171
5.
5. T. G. Schmidt, J. Star-Lack, N. R. Bennett, S. R. Mazin, E. G. Solomon, R. Fahrig, and N. J. Pelc, “A prototype table-top inverse-geometry volumetric CT system,” Med. Phys. 33, 18671878 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2192887
6.
6. S. R. Mazin, J. Star-Lack, N. R. Bennett, and N. J. Pelc, “Inverse-geometry volumetric CT system with multiple detector arrays for wide field-of-view imaging,” Med. Phys. 34, 21332142 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2737168
7.
7. S. Bartolac, S. Graham, J. Siewerdsen, and D. Jaffray, “Fluence field optimization for noise and dose objectives in CT,” Med. Phys. 38, S2S17 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3574885
8.
8. J. Sperl, D. Beque, B. Claus, B. De Man, B. Senzig, and M. Brokate, “Computer-assisted scan protocol and reconstruction (CASPAR)—Reduction of image noise and patient dose,” IEEE Trans.Med. Imaging 29(3), 724732 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2009.2034515
9.
9. S. S. Hsieh and N. J. Pelc, “The feasibility of a piecewise-linear dynamic bowtie filter,” Med. Phys. 40(3), 031910 (12pp.) (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4789630
10.
10. T. P. Szczykutowicz and C. A. Mistretta, “Design of a digital beam attenuation system for computed tomography: Part I. System design and simulation framework,” Med. Phys. 40, 021905 (12pp.) (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4773879
11.
11. T. P. Szczykutowicz and C. A. Mistretta, “Design of a digital beam attenuation system for computed tomography. Part II. Performance study and initial results,” Med. Phys. 40, 021906 (9pp.) (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4773880
12.
12. T. Szczykutowicz and C. Mistretta, “Practical considerations for intensity modulated CT,” Proc. SPIE 8313, 83134E183134E11 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.911355
13.
13. X. Tang, J. Hsieh, R. A. Nilsen, S. Dutta, D. Samsonov, and A. Hagiwara, “A three-dimensional-weighted cone beam filtered backprojection (CB-FBP) algorithm for image reconstruction in volumetric CT—Helical scanning,” Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 855874 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/4/007
14.
14. D. A. Chesler, S. J. Riederer, and N. J. Pelc, “Noise due to photon counting statistics in computed x-ray tomography,” J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1(1), 6474 (1977).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004728-197701000-00009
15.
15. A. Kak and M. Slaney, Principles of Computerized Tomographic Imaging (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1988).
16.
16. S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, and G. Barrand, “Geant4-a simulation toolkit,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.: Sect. A 506(3), 250303 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
17.
17. P. M. Joseph and R. D. Spital, “A method for correcting bone induced artifacts in computed tomography scanners,” J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2(1), 100108 (1978).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004728-197801000-00017
18.
18. M. Grant and S. Boyd, CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 1.21 (2011).
19.
19. M. Grant and S. Boyd, “Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs,” in Recent Advances in Learning and Control , edited by V. Blondel, S. Boyd, and H. Kimura (Springer-Verlag Limited, 2008), pp. 95110.
20.
20.CASIMAGE radiology teaching files database available from http://pubimage.hcuge.ch.
21.
21. A. Berrington de Gonzalez, M. Mahesh, K. P. Kim, M. Bhargavan, R. Lewis, F. Mettler, and C. Land, “Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007,” Arch. Intern. Med. 169(22), 20712077 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440
22.
22. J. R. Mayo, K. P. Whittall, A. N. Leung, T. E. Hartman, C. S. Park, S. L. Primack, G. K. Chambers, M. K. Limkeman, T. L. Toth, and S. H. Fox, “Simulated dose reduction in conventional chest CT: Validation study,” Radiology 202(2), 453457 (1997).
23.
23. J. Li, U. K. Udayasankar, T. L. Toth, J. Seamans, W. C. Small, and M. K. Kalra, “Automatic patient centering for MDCT: Effect on radiation dose,” Am. J. Roentgenol. 188(2), 547552 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0370
24.
24. T. Toth, Z. Ge, and M. P. Daly, “The influence of patient centering on CT dose and image noise,” Med. Phys. 34, 30933101 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2748113
25.
25. J. B. Thibault, K. D. Sauer, C. A. Bouman, and J. Hsieh, “A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT,” Med. Phys. 34, 45264544 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2789499
26.
26. K. Taguchi, S. Srivastava, H. Kudo, and W. C. Barber, in Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record on Enabling Photon Counting Clinical X-ray CT (IEEE, 2009), pp. 35813585 (2009).
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4862079
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4862079
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4862079
2014-01-30
2014-07-29

Abstract

The authors recently proposed a dynamic, prepatient x-ray attenuator capable of producing a piecewise-linear attenuation profile customized to each patient and viewing angle. This attenuator was intended to reduce scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR), dynamic range, and dose by redistributing flux. In this work the authors tested the ability of the attenuator to reduce dose and SPR in simulations.

The authors selected four clinical applications, including routine full field-of-view scans of the thorax and abdomen, and targeted reconstruction tasks for an abdominal aortic aneurysm and the pancreas. Raw data were estimated by forward projection of the image volume datasets. The dynamic attenuator was controlled to reduce dose while maintaining peak variance by solving a convex optimization problem, assuming knowledge of the patient anatomy. In targeted reconstruction tasks, the noise in specific regions was given increased weighting. A system with a standard attenuator (or “bowtie filter”) was used as a reference, and used either convex optimized tube current modulation (TCM) or a standard TCM heuristic. The noise of the scan was determined analytically while the dose was estimated using Monte Carlo simulations. Scatter was also estimated using Monte Carlo simulations. The sensitivity of the dynamic attenuator to patient centering was also examined by shifting the abdomen in 2 cm intervals.

Compared to a reference system with optimized TCM, use of the dynamic attenuator reduced dose by about 30% in routine scans and 50% in targeted scans. Compared to the TCM heuristics which are typically used without knowledge, the dose reduction is about 50% for routine scans. The dynamic attenuator gives the ability to redistribute noise and variance and produces more uniform noise profiles than systems with a conventional bowtie filter. The SPR was also modestly reduced by 10% in the thorax and 24% in the abdomen. Imaging with the dynamic attenuator was relatively insensitive to patient centering, showing a 17% increase in peak variance for a 6 cm shift of the abdomen, instead of an 82% increase in peak variance for a fixed bowtie filter.

A dynamic prepatient x-ray attenuator consisting of multiple wedges is capable of achieving substantial dose reductions and modest SPR reductions.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/1.4862079.html;jsessionid=1uqd325yvrjjy.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4862079&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
This feature is disabled while Scitation upgrades its access control system.
This feature is disabled while Scitation upgrades its access control system.
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Dose reduction using a dynamic, piecewise-linear attenuator
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4862079
10.1118/1.4862079
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM