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

Title: SU-F-J-175: Evaluation of Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithms in Computed Tomography and Their Application to Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning

Abstract

Purpose: High-Z (metal) implants in CT scans cause significant streak-like artifacts in the reconstructed dataset. This results in both inaccurate CT Hounsfield units for the tissue as well as obscuration of the target and organs at risk (OARs) for radiation therapy planning. Herein we analyze two metal artifact reduction algorithms: GE’s Smart MAR and a Metal Deletion Technique (MDT) for geometric and Hounsfield Unit (HU) accuracy. Methods: A CT-to-electron density phantom, with multiple inserts of various densities and a custom Cerrobend insert (Zeff=76.8), is utilized in this continuing study. The phantom is scanned without metal (baseline) and again with the metal insert. Using one set of projection data, reconstructed CT volumes are created with filtered-back-projection (FBP) and the MAR and the MDT algorithms. Regions-of-Interest (ROIs) are evaluated for each insert for HU accuracy; the metal insert’s Full-Width-Half-Maximum (FWHM) is used to evaluate the geometric accuracy. Streak severity is quantified with an HU error metric over the phantom volume. Results: The original FBP reconstruction has a Root-Mean-Square-Error (RMSE) of 57.55 HU (STD=29.19, range=−145.8 to +79.2) compared to baseline. The MAR reconstruction has a RMSE of 20.98 HU (STD=13.92, range=−18.3 to +61.7). The MDT reconstruction has a RMSE of 10.05 HU (STD=10.5,more » range=−14.8 to +18.6). FWHM for baseline=162.05; FBP=161.84 (−0.13%); MAR=162.36 (+0.19%); MDT=162.99 (+0.58%). Streak severity metric for FBP=19.73 (22.659% bad pixels); MAR=8.743 (9.538% bad); MDT=4.899 (5.303% bad). Conclusion: Image quality, in terms of HU accuracy, in the presence of high-Z metal objects in CT scans is improved by metal artifact reduction reconstruction algorithms. The MDT algorithm had the highest HU value accuracy (RMSE=10.05 HU) and best streak severity metric, but scored the worst in terms of geometric accuracy. Qualitatively, the MAR and MDT algorithms increased detectability of inserts, although there is a loss of in-plane resolution near the metallic insert.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1]
  1. Baylor Scott & White Health, Temple, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22634772
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ACCURACY; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DATASETS; ERRORS; HAZARDS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGES; IMPLANTS; METRICS; ORGANS; PHANTOMS; PLANNING; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Norris, H, Rangaraj, D, and Kim, S. SU-F-J-175: Evaluation of Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithms in Computed Tomography and Their Application to Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956083.
Norris, H, Rangaraj, D, & Kim, S. SU-F-J-175: Evaluation of Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithms in Computed Tomography and Their Application to Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956083.
Norris, H, Rangaraj, D, and Kim, S. Wed . "SU-F-J-175: Evaluation of Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithms in Computed Tomography and Their Application to Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956083.
@article{osti_22634772,
title = {SU-F-J-175: Evaluation of Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithms in Computed Tomography and Their Application to Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning},
author = {Norris, H and Rangaraj, D and Kim, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: High-Z (metal) implants in CT scans cause significant streak-like artifacts in the reconstructed dataset. This results in both inaccurate CT Hounsfield units for the tissue as well as obscuration of the target and organs at risk (OARs) for radiation therapy planning. Herein we analyze two metal artifact reduction algorithms: GE’s Smart MAR and a Metal Deletion Technique (MDT) for geometric and Hounsfield Unit (HU) accuracy. Methods: A CT-to-electron density phantom, with multiple inserts of various densities and a custom Cerrobend insert (Zeff=76.8), is utilized in this continuing study. The phantom is scanned without metal (baseline) and again with the metal insert. Using one set of projection data, reconstructed CT volumes are created with filtered-back-projection (FBP) and the MAR and the MDT algorithms. Regions-of-Interest (ROIs) are evaluated for each insert for HU accuracy; the metal insert’s Full-Width-Half-Maximum (FWHM) is used to evaluate the geometric accuracy. Streak severity is quantified with an HU error metric over the phantom volume. Results: The original FBP reconstruction has a Root-Mean-Square-Error (RMSE) of 57.55 HU (STD=29.19, range=−145.8 to +79.2) compared to baseline. The MAR reconstruction has a RMSE of 20.98 HU (STD=13.92, range=−18.3 to +61.7). The MDT reconstruction has a RMSE of 10.05 HU (STD=10.5, range=−14.8 to +18.6). FWHM for baseline=162.05; FBP=161.84 (−0.13%); MAR=162.36 (+0.19%); MDT=162.99 (+0.58%). Streak severity metric for FBP=19.73 (22.659% bad pixels); MAR=8.743 (9.538% bad); MDT=4.899 (5.303% bad). Conclusion: Image quality, in terms of HU accuracy, in the presence of high-Z metal objects in CT scans is improved by metal artifact reduction reconstruction algorithms. The MDT algorithm had the highest HU value accuracy (RMSE=10.05 HU) and best streak severity metric, but scored the worst in terms of geometric accuracy. Qualitatively, the MAR and MDT algorithms increased detectability of inserts, although there is a loss of in-plane resolution near the metallic insert.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956083},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}