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.
A linear, separable two-parameter model for dual energy CT imaging of proton stopping power computation
1.R. A. Rutherford, B. R. Pullan, and I. Isherwood, “Measurement of effective atomic number and electron density using an EMI scanner,” Neuroradiology 11, 15–21 (1976).
4.T. R. C. Johnson, B. Krauß, M. Sedlmair, M. Grasruck, H. Bruder, D. Morhard, C. Fink, S. Weckbach, M. Lenhard, B. Schmidt, T. Flohr, M. F. Reiser, and C. R. Becker, “Material differentiation by dual energy CT: Initial experience,” Eur. Radiol. 17(6), 1510–1517 (2007).
5.J. D. Evans, B. R. Whiting, J. A. O’Sullivan, D. G. Politte, P. H. Klahr, Y. Yu, and J. F. Williamson, “Prospects for in vivo estimation of photon linear attenuation coefficients using postprocessing dual-energy CT imaging on a commercial scanner: Comparison of analytic and polyenergetic statistical reconstruction algorithms,” Med. Phys. 40(12), 121914 (16pp.) (2013).
6.M. Yang, G. Virshup, J. Clayton, X. R. Zhu, R. Mohan, and L. Dong, “Theoretical variance analysis of single- and dual-energy computed tomography methods for calculating proton stopping power ratios of biological tissues,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 1343–1362 (2010).
7.M. Bazalova, J. F. Carrier, L. Beaulieu, and F. Verhaegen, “Dual-energy CT-based material extraction for tissue segmentation in Monte Carlo dose calculations,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 2439–2456 (2008).
8.U. Schneider, P. Pemler, J. Besserer, E. Pedroni, A. Lomax, and B. Kaser-Hotz, “Patient specific optimization of the relation between CT-Hounsfield units and proton stopping power with proton radiography,” Med. Phys. 32(1), 195–199 (2005).
10.M. Torikoshi, T. Tsunoo, M. Sasaki, M. Endo, Y. Noda, Y. Ohno, T. Kohno, K. Hyodo, K. Uesugi, and N. Yagi, “Electron density measurement with dual-energy x-ray CT using synchrotron radiation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 48, 673–685 (2003).
12.N. Hünemohr, B. Krauss, C. Tremmel, B. Ackermann, O. Jäkel, and S. Greilich, “Experimental verification of ion stopping power prediction from dual energy CT data in tissue surrogates,” Phys. Med. Biol. 59, 83–96 (2014).
13.N. Hünemohr, B. Krauss, J. Dinkel, C. Gillmann, B. Ackermann, O. Jäkel, and S. Greilich, “Ion range estimation by using dual energy computed tomography,” Z. Med. Phys. 23(4), 300–313 (2013).
14.G. Landry, K. Parodi, J. E. Wilderger, and F. Verhaegen, “Deriving concentrations of oxygen and carbon in human tissues using single- and dual-energy CT for ion therapy applications,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 5029–5048 (2013).
15.N. Hünemohr, H. Paganetti, S. Greilich, O. Jäkel, and J. Seco, “Tissue decomposition from dual energy CT data for MC based dose calculation in particle therapy,” Med. Phys. 41, 061714 (14pp.) (2014).
16.J. F. Williamson, S. Li, S. Devic, B. R. Whiting, and F. A. Lerma, “On two-parameter models of photon cross sections: Application to dual-energy CT imaging,” Med. Phys. 33, 4115–4129 (2006).
17.G. H. Chen, J. Tang, and S. Leng, “Prior image constrained compressed sensing (PICCS): A method to accurately reconstruct dynamic CT images from highly undersampled projection data sets,” Med. Phys. 35, 660–663 (2008).
18.J. D. Evans, B. R. Whiting, D. G. Politte, J. A. O’Sullivan, P. F. Klahr, and J. F. Williamson, “Experimental implementation of a polyenergetic statistical reconstruction algorithm for a commercial fan-beam CT scanner,” Phys. Med. 29, 500–512 (2013).
, J. A. O’Sullivan
, D. G. Politte
, J. D. Evans
, D. Han
, B. R. Whiting
, and J. F. Williamson
, “Line integral alternating minimization algorithm for dual-energy x-ray CT image reconstruction
,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging PP
), see http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7298440
21.D. Han, A. Sampson, D. Politte, J. O’Sullivan, J. Siebers, and J. F. Williamson, “Accuracy of dual-energy CT photon cross-section mapping using a non-separable two parameter cross-section model,” Med. Phys. 39(6), 3989 (2012).
23.ICRU, “Photon electron proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues,” Report No. 46 (ICRU, Bethesda, MD, 1992).
24.ICRU, “Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement,” Report No. 44 (ICRU, Bethesda, MD, 1989).
25.ICRU, “Stopping powers for electrons and positrons,” Report No. 37 (ICRU, Bethesda, MD,1984).
26.D. R. Warren, M. Partridge, M. A. Hill, and K. Peach, “Improved calibration of mass stopping power in low density tissue for a proton pencil beam algorithm,” Phys. Med. Biol. 60, 4243–4261 (2015).
28.J. B. Weaver and A. L. Huddleston, “Attenuation coefficients of body tissues using principal-components analysis,” Med. Phys. 12(1), 40–45 (1985).
29.M. J. Berger, J. H. Hubbell, S. M. Seltzer, J. Chang, J. S. Coursey, R. Sukumar, D. S. Zucker, and K. Olsen, XCOM: Photon Cross Section Database, Version 1.5, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,2010.
34.B. N. Taylor and C. E. Kuyatt, “Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results,” NIST Technical Note 1297 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1994).
35.ICRU, “Stopping powers and ranges for protons and alpha-particles,” Report No. 49 (ICRU, Bethesda, MD, 1993).
36.A. Besemer, H. Paganetti, and B. Bednarz, “Clinical impact of uncertainties in the mean excitation energy of human tissues during proton therapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 887–902 (2013).
38.G. Landry, J. Seco, M. Gaudreault, and F. Verhaegen, “Deriving effective atomic numbers from DECT based on a parameterization of the ratio of high and low linear attenuation coefficients,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 6851–6866 (2013).
39.M. Saito, “Potential of dual-energy subtraction for converting CT numbers to electron density based on a single linear relationship,” Med. Phys. 39(4), 2021–2030 (2012).
41.P. M. Shikhaliev and S. G. Fritz, “Photon counting spectral CT versus conventional CT: Comparative evaluation for breast imaging application,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 1905–1930 (2011).
42.J. P. Schlomka, E. Roessl, R. Dorscheid, S. Dill, G. Martens, T. Istel, C. Bäumer, C. Herrmann, R. Steadman, G. Zeitler, A. Livne, and R. Proska, “Experimental feasibility of multi-energy photon-counting K-edge imaging in pre-clinical computed tomography,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 4031–4047 (2008).
Article metrics loading...
To evaluate the accuracy and robustness of a simple, linear, separable, two-parameter model (basis vector model, BVM) in mapping protonstopping powersvia dual energy computed tomography (DECT) imaging.
The BVM assumes that photon cross sections (attenuation coefficients) of unknown materials are linear combinations of the corresponding radiological quantities of dissimilar basis substances (i.e., polystyrene, CaCl2 aqueous solution, and water). The authors have extended this approach to the estimation of electron density and mean excitation energy, which are required parameters for computing protonstopping powers via the Bethe–Bloch equation. The authors compared the stopping power estimation accuracy of the BVM with that of a nonlinear, nonseparable photon cross section Torikoshi parametric fit model (VCU tPFM) as implemented by the authors and by Yang et al. [“Theoretical variance analysis of single- and dual-energy computed tomography methods for calculating protonstopping power ratios of biological tissues,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 1343–1362 (2010)]. Using an idealized monoenergetic DECT imaging model, proton ranges estimated by the BVM, VCU tPFM, and Yang tPFM were compared to International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) published reference values. The robustness of the stopping power prediction accuracy of tissue composition variations was assessed for both of the BVM and VCU tPFM. The sensitivity of accuracy to CTimageuncertainty was also evaluated.
Based on the authors’ idealized, error-free DECT imaging model, the root-mean-square error of BVM protonstopping power estimation for 175 MeV protons relative to ICRU reference values for 34 ICRU standard tissues is 0.20%, compared to 0.23% and 0.68% for the Yang and VCU tPFM models, respectively. The range estimation errors were less than 1 mm for the BVM and Yang tPFM models, respectively. The BVM estimation accuracy is not dependent on tissue type and proton energy range. The BVM is slightly more vulnerable to CTimage intensity uncertainties than the tPFM models. Both the BVM and tPFM prediction accuracies were robust to uncertainties of tissue composition and independent of the choice of reference values. This reported accuracy does not include the impacts of I-value uncertainties and imaging artifacts and may not be achievable on current clinical CT scanners.
The protonstopping power estimation accuracy of the proposed linear, separable BVM model is comparable to or better than that of the nonseparable tPFM models proposed by other groups. In contrast to the tPFM, the BVM does not require an iterative solving for effective atomic number and electron density at every voxel; this improves the computational efficiency of DECT imaging when iterative, model-based image reconstruction algorithms are used to minimize noise and systematic imaging artifacts of CTimages.
Full text loading...
Most read this month