skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-J-154: Image Quality Assessment of Contrast-Enhanced 4D-CT for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Radiotherapy Simulation

Abstract

Purpose: This study presents quantitative and qualitative assessment of the image qualities in contrast-enhanced (CE) 3D-CT, 4D-CT and CE 4D-CT to identify feasibility for replacing the clinical standard simulation with a single CE 4D-CT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA) in radiotherapy simulation. Methods: Ten PDA patients were enrolled and underwent three CT scans: a clinical standard pair of CE 3D-CT immediately followed by a 4D-CT, and a CE 4D-CT one week later. Physicians qualitatively evaluated the general image quality and regional vessel definitions and gave a score from 1 to 5. Next, physicians delineated the contours of the tumor (T) and the normal pancreatic parenchyma (P) on the three CTs (CE 3D-CT, 50% phase for 4D-CT and CE 4D-CT), then high density areas were automatically removed by thresholding at 500 HU and morphological operations. The pancreatic tumor contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) and conspicuity (C, absolute difference of mean enhancement levels in P and T) were computed to quantitatively assess image quality. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare these quantities. Results: In qualitative evaluations, CE 3D-CT and CE 4D-CT scored equivalently (4.4±0.4 and 4.3±0.4) and both were significantly better than 4D-CT (3.1±0.6). In quantitative evaluations, the Cmore » values were higher in CE 4D-CT (28±19 HU, p=0.19 and 0.17) than the clinical standard pair of CE 3D-CT and 4D-CT (17±12 and 16±17 HU, p=0.65). In CE 3D-CT and CE 4D-CT, mean CNR (1.8±1.4 and 1.8±1.7, p=0.94) and mean SNR (5.8±2.6 and 5.5±3.2, p=0.71) both were higher than 4D-CT (CNR: 1.1±1.3, p<0.3; SNR: 3.3±2.1, p<0.1). The absolute enhancement levels for T and P were higher in CE 4D-CT (87, 82 HU) than in CE 3D-CT (60, 56) and 4DCT (53, 70). Conclusions: The individually optimized CE 4D-CT is feasible and achieved comparable image qualities to the clinical standard simulation. This study was supported in part by Philips Healthcare.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;  [1];  [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (United States)
  2. (Korea, Republic of)
  3. Philips Healthcare, Highland Heights, OH (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22494164
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; CARCINOMAS; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGES; PANCREAS; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION

Citation Formats

Choi, W, Xue, M, Patel, K, Regine, W, Wang, J, D’Souza, W, Lu, W, Kang, M, Yeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu, Daegu, and Klahr, P. SU-E-J-154: Image Quality Assessment of Contrast-Enhanced 4D-CT for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Radiotherapy Simulation. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924239.
Choi, W, Xue, M, Patel, K, Regine, W, Wang, J, D’Souza, W, Lu, W, Kang, M, Yeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu, Daegu, & Klahr, P. SU-E-J-154: Image Quality Assessment of Contrast-Enhanced 4D-CT for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Radiotherapy Simulation. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924239.
Choi, W, Xue, M, Patel, K, Regine, W, Wang, J, D’Souza, W, Lu, W, Kang, M, Yeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu, Daegu, and Klahr, P. Mon . "SU-E-J-154: Image Quality Assessment of Contrast-Enhanced 4D-CT for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Radiotherapy Simulation". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924239.
@article{osti_22494164,
title = {SU-E-J-154: Image Quality Assessment of Contrast-Enhanced 4D-CT for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Radiotherapy Simulation},
author = {Choi, W and Xue, M and Patel, K and Regine, W and Wang, J and D’Souza, W and Lu, W and Kang, M and Yeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu, Daegu and Klahr, P},
abstractNote = {Purpose: This study presents quantitative and qualitative assessment of the image qualities in contrast-enhanced (CE) 3D-CT, 4D-CT and CE 4D-CT to identify feasibility for replacing the clinical standard simulation with a single CE 4D-CT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA) in radiotherapy simulation. Methods: Ten PDA patients were enrolled and underwent three CT scans: a clinical standard pair of CE 3D-CT immediately followed by a 4D-CT, and a CE 4D-CT one week later. Physicians qualitatively evaluated the general image quality and regional vessel definitions and gave a score from 1 to 5. Next, physicians delineated the contours of the tumor (T) and the normal pancreatic parenchyma (P) on the three CTs (CE 3D-CT, 50% phase for 4D-CT and CE 4D-CT), then high density areas were automatically removed by thresholding at 500 HU and morphological operations. The pancreatic tumor contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) and conspicuity (C, absolute difference of mean enhancement levels in P and T) were computed to quantitatively assess image quality. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare these quantities. Results: In qualitative evaluations, CE 3D-CT and CE 4D-CT scored equivalently (4.4±0.4 and 4.3±0.4) and both were significantly better than 4D-CT (3.1±0.6). In quantitative evaluations, the C values were higher in CE 4D-CT (28±19 HU, p=0.19 and 0.17) than the clinical standard pair of CE 3D-CT and 4D-CT (17±12 and 16±17 HU, p=0.65). In CE 3D-CT and CE 4D-CT, mean CNR (1.8±1.4 and 1.8±1.7, p=0.94) and mean SNR (5.8±2.6 and 5.5±3.2, p=0.71) both were higher than 4D-CT (CNR: 1.1±1.3, p<0.3; SNR: 3.3±2.1, p<0.1). The absolute enhancement levels for T and P were higher in CE 4D-CT (87, 82 HU) than in CE 3D-CT (60, 56) and 4DCT (53, 70). Conclusions: The individually optimized CE 4D-CT is feasible and achieved comparable image qualities to the clinical standard simulation. This study was supported in part by Philips Healthcare.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924239},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: To study the feasibility of individually optimized contrastenhancement (CE) 4D-CT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA) in radiotherapy simulation. To evaluate the image quality and contrast enhancement of tumor in the CE 4D-CT, compared to the clinical standard of CE 3D-CT and 4D-CT. Methods: In this IRB-approved study, each of the 7 PDA patients enrolled underwent 3 CT scans: a free-breathing 3D-CT with contrast (CE 3D-CT) followed by a 4D-CT without contrast (4D-CT) in the first study session, and a 4D-CT with individually synchronized contrast injection (CE 4D-CT) in the second study session. In CE 4D-CT, the time of full contrastmore » injection was determined based on the time of peak enhancement for the test injection, injection rate, table speed, and longitudinal location and span of the pancreatic region. Physicians contoured both the tumor (T) and the normal pancreatic parenchyma (P) on the three CTs (end-of-exhalation for 4D-CT). The contrast between the tumor and normal pancreatic tissue was computed as the difference of the mean enhancement level of three 1 cm3 regions of interests in T and P, respectively. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to statistically compare the scores and contrasts. Results: In qualitative evaluations, both CE 3D-CT and CE 4D-CT scored significantly better than 4D-CT (4.0 and 3.6 vs. 2.6). There was no significant difference between CE 3D-CT and CE 4D-CT. In quantitative evaluations, the contrasts between the tumor and the normal pancreatic parenchyma were 0.6±23.4, −2.1±8.0, and −19.6±28.8 HU, in CE 3D-CT, 4D-CT, and CE 4D-CT, respectively. Although not statistically significant, CE 4D-CT achieved better contrast enhancement between the tumor and the normal pancreatic parenchyma than both CE 3D-CT and 4DCT. Conclusion: CE 4D-CT achieved equivalent image quality and better contrast enhancement between tumor and normal pancreatic parenchyma than the clinical standard of CE 3D-CT and 4D-CT. This study was supported in part by Philips Healthcare.« less
  • Purpose: To develop an individually optimized contrast-enhanced (CE) 4D-CT for radiotherapy simulation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDA). Methods: Ten PDA patients were enrolled. Each underwent 3 CT scans: a 4D-CT immediately following a CE 3D-CT and an individually optimized CE 4D-CT using test injection. Three physicians contoured the tumor and pancreatic tissues. We compared image quality scores, tumor volume, motion, tumor-to-pancreas contrast, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in the 3 CTs. We also evaluated interobserver variations in contouring the tumor using simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE). Results: Average image quality scores for CE 3DCT and CE 4D-CT were comparablemore » (4.0 and 3.8, respectively; P=0.47), and both were significantly better than that for 4D-CT (2.6, P<0.001). Tumor-to-pancreas contrast results were comparable in CE 3D-CT and CE 4D-CT (15.5 and 16.7 HU, respectively; P=0.71), and the latter was significantly higher than in 4D-CT (9.2 HU, P=0.03). Image noise in CE 3D-CT (12.5 HU) was significantly lower than in CE 4D-CT (22.1 HU, P<0.001) and 4D-CT (19.4 HU, P=0.005). CNRs were comparable in CE 3D-CT and CE 4DCT (1.4 and 0.8, respectively; P=0.23), and the former was significantly better than in 4D-CT (0.6, P = 0.04). Mean tumor volumes were smaller in CE 3D-CT (29.8 cm{sup 3}) and CE 4D-CT (22.8 cm{sup 3}) than in 4D-CT (42.0 cm{sup 3}), although these differences were not statistically significant. Mean tumor motion was comparable in 4D-CT and CE 4D-CT (7.2 and 6.2 mm, P=0.23). Interobserver variations were comparable in CE 3D-CT and CE 4D-CT (Jaccard index 66.0% and 61.9%, respectively) and were worse for 4D-CT (55.6%) than CE 3D-CT. Conclusion: CE 4D-CT demonstrated characteristics comparable to CE 3D-CT, with high potential for simultaneously delineating the tumor and quantifying tumor motion with a single scan. Supported in part by Philips Healthcare.« less
  • Purpose: To estimate dosimetric errors resulting from using contours deformably mapped from planning CT to 4D cone beam CT (CBCT) images for image-guided adaptive radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Ten locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients underwent one planning 4D fan-beam CT (4DFBCT) and weekly 4DCBCT scans. Multiple physicians delineated the gross tumor volume (GTV) and normal structures in planning CT images and only GTV in CBCT images. Manual contours were mapped from planning CT to CBCTs using small deformation, inverse consistent linear elastic (SICLE) algorithm for two scans in each patient. Twomore » physicians reviewed and rated the DIR-mapped (auto) and manual GTV contours as clinically acceptable (CA), clinically acceptable after minor modification (CAMM) and unacceptable (CU). Mapped normal structures were visually inspected and corrected if necessary, and used to override tissue density for dose calculation. CTV (6mm expansion of GTV) and PTV (5mm expansion of CTV) were created. VMAT plans were generated using the DIR-mapped contours to deliver 66 Gy in 33 fractions with 95% and 100% coverage (V66) to PTV and CTV, respectively. Plan evaluation for V66 was based on manual PTV and CTV contours. Results: Mean PTV V66 was 84% (range 75% – 95%) and mean CTV V66 was 97% (range 93% – 100%) for CAMM scored plans (12 plans); and was 90% (range 80% – 95%) and 99% (range 95% – 100%) for CA scored plans (7 plans). The difference in V66 between CAMM and CA was significant for PTV (p = 0.03) and approached significance for CTV (p = 0.07). Conclusion: The quality of DIR-mapped contours directly impacted the plan quality for 4DCBCT-based adaptation. Larger safety margins may be needed when planning with auto contours for IGART with 4DCBCT images. Reseach was supported by NIH P01CA116602.« less
  • Purpose: Accurate deformable image registration (DIR) between CT and CBCT in H&N is challenging. In this study, we propose a practical hybrid method that uses not only the pixel intensities but also organ physical properties, structure volume of interest (VOI), and interactive local registrations. Methods: Five oropharyngeal cancer patients were selected retrospectively. For each patient, the planning CT was registered to the last fraction CBCT, where the anatomy difference was largest. A three step registration strategy was tested; Step1) DIR using pixel intensity only, Step2) DIR with additional use of structure VOI and rigidity penalty, and Step3) interactive local correction.more » For Step1, a public-domain open-source DIR algorithm was used (cubic B-spline, mutual information, steepest gradient optimization, and 4-level multi-resolution). For Step2, rigidity penalty was applied on bony anatomies and brain, and a structure VOI was used to handle the body truncation such as the shoulder cut-off on CBCT. Finally, in Step3, the registrations were reviewed on our in-house developed software and the erroneous areas were corrected via a local registration using level-set motion algorithm. Results: After Step1, there were considerable amount of registration errors in soft tissues and unrealistic stretching in the posterior to the neck and near the shoulder due to body truncation. The brain was also found deformed to a measurable extent near the superior border of CBCT. Such errors could be effectively removed by using a structure VOI and rigidity penalty. The rest of the local soft tissue error could be corrected using the interactive software tool. The estimated interactive correction time was approximately 5 minutes. Conclusion: The DIR using only the image pixel intensity was vulnerable to noise and body truncation. A corrective action was inevitable to achieve good quality of registrations. We found the proposed three-step hybrid method efficient and practical for CT/CBCT registrations in H&N. My department receives grant support from Industrial partners: (a) Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, and (b) Philips HealthCare, Best, Netherlands.« less
  • Purpose: To compare and quantify respiratory motion artifacts in images from free breathing 4D-CT-on-Rails(CTOR) and those from MV-Cone-beam-CT(MVCB) and facilitate respiratory motion guided radiation therapy. Methods: 4D-CTOR: Siemens Somatom CT-on-Rails system with Anzai belt loaded with pressure sensor load cells. 4D scans were performed in helical mode, pitch 0.1, gantry rotation time 0.5s, 1.5mm slice thickness, 120kVp, 400 mAs. Normal and fast breathing (>12rpm) scanning protocols were investigated. Helical scan, AIP(average intensity projection) and MIP(maximum intensity projection) were generated from 4D-CTOR scans with amplitude sorting into 10 phases.MVCB: Siemens Artiste diamond view(1MV)MVCB was performed with 5MU thorax protocol with 60more » second of full rotation.Phantom: Anzai AZ-733V respiratory phantom. The settings were set to normal and resp. modes with repetition rates at 15 rpm and 10 rpm. Surgical clips, acrylic, wooden, rubber and lung density, total six mock-ups were scanned and compared in this study.Signal-to-noise ratio(SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio(CNR) and reconstructed motion volume were compared to different respiratory setups for the mock-ups. Results: Reconstructed motion volume was compared to the real object volume for the six test mock-ups. It shows that free breathing helical in all instances underestimates the object excursions largest to −67.4% and least −6.3%. Under normal breathing settings, MIP can predict very precise motion volume with minimum 0.4% and largest −13.9%. MVCB shows underestimate of the motion volume with −1.11% minimum and −18.0% maximum. With fast breathing, AIP provides bad representation of the object motion; however, the MIP can predict the motion volume with −2.0% to −11.4% underestimate. Conclusion: Respiratory motion guided radiation therapy requires good motion recording. This study shows that regular CTOR helical scans provides bad guidance, 4D CTOR AIP cannot represent the fast breathing pattern, MIP can represent the best motion volume, MVCBCT can only be used for normal breathing with acceptable uncertainties.« less