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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Control algorithms for dynamic attenuators
1. J. Hsieh, Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances (SPIE Press, Bellingham, WA, 2003).
2. K. Taguchi, M. Zhang, E. C. Frey, X. Wang, J. S. Iwanczyk, E. Nygard, N. E. Hartsough, B. M. Tsui, and W. C. Barber, “Modeling the performance of a photon counting x-ray detector for CT: Energy response and pulse pileup effects,” Med. Phys. 38, 1089–1102 (2011).
3. K. Taguchi, E. C. Frey, X. Wang, J. S. Iwanczyk, and W. C. Barber, “An analytical model of the effects of pulse pileup on the energy spectrum recorded by energy resolved photon counting x-ray detectors,” Med. Phys. 37, 3957–3969 (2010).
5. F. Liu, G. Wang, W. Cong, S. S. Hsieh, and N. J. Pelc, “Dynamic bowtie for fan-beam CT,” Journal of X-ray Science and Technology 21(4), 579–590 (2013).
6. M. K. Kalra, M. M. Maher, T. L. Toth, B. Schmidt, B. L. Westerman, H. T. Morgan, and S. Saini, “Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT,” Radiology 233, 649–657 (2004).
7. 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, 2235–2247 (1999).
8. W. A. Kalender, H. Wolf, and C. Suess, “Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements,” Med. Phys. 26, 2248–2253 (1999).
9. S. Bartolac, S. Graham, J. Siewerdsen, and D. Jaffray, “Fluence field optimization for noise and dose objectives in CT,” Med. Phys. 38, S2–S17 (2011).
10. 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, 724–732 (2010).
11. 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, 2133–2142 (2007).
12. 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, 1867–1878 (2006).
13. 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, 2623–2627 (2004).
14. J. S. Arenson, D. Ruimi, O. Meirav, and R. H. Armstrong, General Electric Company, “X-ray flux management device,” U.S. patent 7,330,535 (12 Feb 2008).
15. T. L. Toth, J. E. Tkaczyk, and J. Hsieh, General Electric Company, “Method and apparatus of radiographic imaging with an energy beam tailored for a subject to be scanned,” U.S. patent 7,076,029 (11 July 2006).
16. 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).
17. 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).
19. 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, 547–552 (2007).
22. A. Kak and M. Slaney, Principles of Computerized Tomographic Imaging (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1988).
23. 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, 855–874 (2006).
24. X. Tang, J. Hsieh, A. Hagiwara, R. A. Nilsen, J. B. Thibault, and E. Drapkin, “A three-dimensional weighted cone beam filtered backprojection (CB-FBP) algorithm for image reconstruction in volumetric CT under a circular source trajectory,” Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 3889–3905 (2005).
25. K. Boedeker and M. McNitt-Gray, “Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: Part II. Noise power spectra and signal to noise,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 4047–4061 (2007).
27. S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2004).
28. M. Grant and S. Boyd, CVX: Matlab Software for Disciplined Convex Programming, version 1.21, 2011.
29. 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, London, 2008), pp. 95–110.
30. S. Bartolac and D. Jaffray, “Compensator models for fluence field modulated computed tomography,” Med. Phys. 40, 121909 (15pp.) (2013).
32. S. Bartolac and D. Jaffray, “Strategies for fluence field modulated CT,” Paper Presented at AAPM 55th Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, August 2013.
33. S. S. Hsieh, D. Fleischmann, and N. J. Pelc, “Dose reduction using a dynamic, piecewise-linear attenuator,” Med. Phys. 41, 021910 (14pp.) (2014).
34. E. Roessl and R. Proksa, “Dynamic beam-shaper for high flux photon-counting computed tomography,” Paper Presented at Workshop on Medical Applications of Spectroscopic X-ray Detectors, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
35. T. Köhler, B. Brendel, and R. Proksa, “Beam shaper with optimized dose utility for helical cone-beam CT,” Med. Phys. 38, S76–S84 (2011).
36. 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, 4526–4544 (2007).
Article metrics loading...
The authors describe algorithms to control dynamic attenuators in CT and compare their performance using simulated scans. Dynamic attenuators are prepatient beam shaping filters that modulate the distribution of x-ray fluence incident on the patient on a view-by-view basis. These attenuators can reduce dose while improving key image quality metrics such as peak or mean variance. In each view, the attenuator presents several degrees of freedom which may be individually adjusted. The total number of degrees of freedom across all views is very large, making many optimization techniques impractical. The authors develop a theory for optimally controlling these attenuators. Special attention is paid to a theoretically perfect attenuator which controls the fluence for each ray individually, but the authors also investigate and compare three other, practical attenuator designs which have been previously proposed: the piecewise-linear attenuator, the translating attenuator, and the double wedge attenuator.
The authors pose and solve the optimization problems of minimizing the mean and peak variance subject to a fixed dose limit. For a perfect attenuator and mean variance minimization, this problem can be solved in simple, closed form. For other attenuator designs, the problem can be decomposed into separate problems for each view to greatly reduce the computational complexity. Peak variance minimization can be approximately solved using iterated, weighted mean variance (WMV) minimization. Also, the authors develop heuristics for the perfect and piecewise-linear attenuators which do not requirea priori knowledge of the patient anatomy. The authors compare these control algorithms on different types of dynamic attenuators using simulated raw data from forward projected DICOM files of a thorax and an abdomen.
The translating and double wedge attenuators reduce dose by an average of 30% relative to current techniques (bowtie filter with tube current modulation) without increasing peak variance. The 15-element piecewise-linear dynamic attenuator reduces dose by an average of 42%, and the perfect attenuator reduces dose by an average of 50%. Improvements in peak variance are several times larger than improvements in mean variance. Heuristic control eliminates the need for a prescan. For the piecewise-linear attenuator, the cost of heuristic control is an increase in dose of 9%. The proposed iterated WMV minimization produces results that are within a few percent of the true solution.
Dynamic attenuators show potential for significant dose reduction. A wide class of dynamic attenuators can be accurately controlled using the described methods.
Full text loading...
Most read this month