skip to main content

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

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
; ; ; ; ; ;  [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:
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