Evaluation of imaging performance of major image guidance systems

Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2011, Pages

  Chan, M F ^a   Yang, J ^b   Song, Y ^a   Burman, C ^a   Chan, P ^c   Li, S ^c  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Cone beam CT; IGRT; Image quality; MVCT; Tomotherapy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOTHERAPY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING SYSTEM; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; RADIATION DOSE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; TOMOTHERAPY;

EID: 79954530572     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18235530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2349/biij.7.2.e11     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Groh B, Siewerdsen J, Drake D, et al. A performance comparison of flat-panel imager-based MV and kV cone-beam CT. Med Phys 2002; 29: 967-75.
2. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Araki M, et al. Comparison of image performance between cone-beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multidetector helical CT. J Oral Science 2006; 48(1): 27-34.
3. Stratemann S, Huang J, Maki K, et al. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37(2): 80-93.
4. Xing L, Chang L, Orton C. Point/Counterpoint Kilovoltage imaging is more suitable than megavoltage imaging for guiding radiation therapy. Med. Phys 2007; 34(12): 4563-4566.
5. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med. Phys 2009; 36(9): 4197-4212.
6. Langen KM, Papanikolaou N, Balog J, et al. QA for helical tomotherapy: Report of the AAPM Task Group 148. Med Phys 2010; 37(9): 4817-4853.
7. Meeks S, Harmon J, Langen K, et al. Performance characterization of megavoltage computed tomography imaging on a helical tomotherapy unit. Med Phys 2005; 32(8): 2673-2681.
8. Gayou O and Miften M. Commissioning and clinical implementation of a mega-voltage cone beam CT system for treatment localization. Med Phys 2007; 34(8): 3183-3192.
9. Ghelmansarai F, Bani-Hashemi A, Pouliot J, et al. Soft tissue visualization using a highly efficient megavoltage cone beam CT imaging system. Medical Imaging 2005; Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging: Physics of Medical Imaging: 159-70.
10. Ali I, Lovelock M, LoSasso T, et al. A quality assurance procedure to monitor mechanical stability and image quality of an on-board kV cone-beam CT imager. Med Phys 2006; 33(6): 2282-2283.
11. Yoo S, Kim G, Hammound R, et al. A quality assurance program for the on-board imager. Med Phys 2006; 33(11): 4431-4447.
12. Forrest L, Mackie T, Ruchala K, et al. The utility of megavoltage computed tomotgraphy images from a helical Tomotherapy system for setup verification purposes. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45; 3545-3562.
13. Forrest L, Mackie T, Ruchala K, et al. The utility of megavoltage computed tomography images from a helical tomotherapy system for setup verification purposes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60(5): 1639-1644.
14. Ruchala K, Olivera G, Kapatoes J, et al. Megavoltage CT image reconstruction during tomotherapy treatments. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 3545-3562.
15. Pouliot J, Bani-Hashemi A, Chen J, et al. Low-dose megavoltage cone-beam CT for radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61(2): 552-560.
16. Morin O, Gills A, Chen J, et al. Megavoltage cone-beam CT: System description and clinical applications. Med Dosim 2006; 31: 51-61.