DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Phantom study of Displacement of Three Dimensional Volume Rendering for Clinical Application in Radiation Treatment Planning

방사선치료계획의 임상적용을 위한 3차원 볼륨렌더링영상 체적변화의 모형연구

  • 구은회 (순천향대학교 물리학과) ;
  • 이재승 (순천향대학교 물리학과) ;
  • 임청환 (한서대학교 방사선학과)
  • Published : 2009.11.28

Abstract

This study is to design and produce a detailed model for volume variety of three dimensional reconstruction images and to evaluate the changes of volume, area and the length of the model in the process of the reconstruction of RTP system. CT simulation was operated at the thickness of 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10mm and average, standard deviation of scan direction(X), thickness(Y), table movement direction(Z), area(A), and volume(V) of the three dimensional volume rendering, were measured according to the shape and thickness of the phantoms. As a result, at the thickness of 1.25, 2.5min, the phantom's shape decreased maximum 0.13cm(p<0.05) to the direction of X, Y, Z and length, area, volume decreased 0.1cm, $0.8cm^2$, $3.99cm^3$ which led to an approximate image of the phantoms. However, at the thickness of 5, 10mm, the phantom of the original form decreased maximum 0.58cm(p<0.05) and volume, area, length decreased maximum 0.45cm, $8.21cm^2$, $11.03cm^3$. Volume varieties according to the thickness and shape of the phantoms have occurred diversely, when CT simulation was operated, and it is considered that a clinically appropriate volume rendering can be obtained only when the thickness is below 3mm.

Keywords

Radiation Treatment Planning(RTP);CT-Simulator;Digitally Reconstructed Radiography(DRR);Three Dimensional Volume Randering

References

  1. J. L. Garcia-Ramirez, S. Mutic, and J. F. Dempsey, et al, "Performance evaluation of an 85 cm bore computed tomography scanner designed for radiation oncology and compared with current diagnostic CT scanners," Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol.52, No.4, pp.1123-31, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)02779-1
  2. D. Driver and H. J. Dobbs, "Improvements in radiotherapy practice: the impact of new imaging technologies," Cancer Imaging. Vol.4, No.2, pp.142-50, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2004.0053
  3. G. R. Baker, "Localization: conventional and CT simulation," Br J Radiol. Vol.79, No.3, pp.36-49, 2006.
  4. E. G. Aird and J. Conway, "CT simulation for radiotherapy treatment planning," Br J Radiol. Vol.75, No.1, pp.937-49, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.75.900.750937
  5. J. Conway and M. H. Robinson, "CT virtual simulation," Br J Radio, Vol.70, No.1, pp.106-18, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.1997.0014
  6. X. Li, J. Yang, and Y. Zhu, "Digitally reconstructed radiograph generation by an adaptive Monte carlo method," Phys Med Biol. Vol.51, No.11, pp.2745-2752, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/11/004
  7. J. H. Killoran, E. H. Baldini, and C. J. Beard, et al, "A technique for optimization of digitally reconstructed radiographs of the chest in virtual simulation," Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol.49, No.1, pp.231-239, 2007.
  8. M. Goitein, "The Utility of computed tomography in radiation therapy: An estimate of outcome," Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol.5, No.10, pp.1799-807, 2007.
  9. M. Van Herk, P. Remeijer, and J. V. Lebesque, "Inclusion of geometric uncertainties in treatment plan evaluation," Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol.52, No.5, pp.1407-1422, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)02805-X
  10. S. F. O'Rourke, H. McAneney, and T. Hillen, "Linear quadratic and tumor control probability modeling in external beam radiotherapy," J Math Biol, Vol.58, pp.799-817, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-008-0222-y
  11. R. L. Siddon, "Fast calculation of the exact radiological path for a three-dimensional CT array," Med Phys, Vol.12, No.2, pp.252-255, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595715
  12. C. Levi, J. E. Gray, and E. C. McCullough, et al, "The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values," AJR Am J Roentgenol, Vol.139, No.3, pp.443-447, 1982. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.139.3.443
  13. E. A. Zerhounti, J. F. Spivey, and R. H. Morgan, et al, "Factors influencing quantitative CT measurements of solitary pulmonary nodules," J Comput Assist Tomogr, Vol.6, No.6, pp.1075-87, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-198212000-00005
  14. T. B. Craig, D. Brochu, and J. Van Dyk, "A quality assurance phantom for three dimensional radiation treatment planning," Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol.44, No.4, pp.955-966, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00070-X
  15. K. P. McGee, I. J. Das, and C. Sims, "Evalulation of digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) used for clinical radiotherapy : A phantom study," Med Phys, Vol.22, No.11, pp.1815-1827, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597637
  16. B. G. Fallone, C. Evans, and B.G. Clark, et al, "Verification of the correspondence between CT-simulated and treatment beams," Med Phys, Vol.25, pp.750-1, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598256
  17. A. Budrukkar, D. Dutta, and D. Sharma, et al, "Comparison of geometric uncertainties using electronic portal imaging device in focal three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy using different head supports," J Cancer Res Ther. Vol.4, No.2, pp.70-76, 2008. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.42252
  18. R. Tanaka, M. Matsushirna, and Y. Kikuchi, et al, "Development of computerized patient setup verification and correction system in radiotherapy," Nippon Hoshasen Gijustsu Gakkai Zasshi, Vol.61, No.12, pp.1689-1699, 2005. https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.KJ00004022982
  19. M. Matsushima, T. Adachi, and R. Tanaka, et al, "Study of optimal imaging parameters for digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) in radiotherapy treatment planning using single-slice helical CT," Nippon Hoshasen Gijustsu Gakkai Zasshi, Vol.60, No.4, pp.528-36, 2004. https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.KJ00000922398
  20. J. A. Brink, J. P. Heiken, and G. Wang, et al, "Helical CT principles and technical considerations," Radiographics, Vol.14, No.4, pp.887-893, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.14.4.7938775
  21. K. D. Hopper, D. Pierantozzi, and P. S. Potok, et al, "The quality of 3D reconstructions from 1.0 and 1.5 pitch helical and convention CT," J Comput Assist Tomogr, Vol.20, pp.841-847, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199609000-00036
  22. S. Hashimoto, H. Shirato, and T. Nishioka, et al, "Remote verification in radiotherapy using digitally reconstructed radiography(DRR) and portal images: a pilot study," Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol.50, No.2, pp.579-85, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01485-7
  23. K. E. Hatherly, J.C. Smylie, and A. Rodger, et al, "A double exposed portal image comparison between electronic portal imaging hard copies and port films in radiation therapy treatment setup confirmation to determine its clinical application in radiotherapy center," Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol.49, No.1, pp.191-198, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00789-6
  24. M. G. Herman, R. A. Abrams, and R. R. Mayer, "Clinical use of on-line portal imaging for daily patient treatment verification," Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol.28, No.4, pp.1017-1023, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)90123-6
  25. A. See, T. Kron, and J. Johansen, et al, "Decision-marking models in the analysis of portal film: a clinical pilot study," Australas Radiol, Vol.44, No.1, pp.72-83, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1673.2000.00775.x