Back

Dual-energy computed tomography imaging with megavoltage and kilovoltage x-ray spectra

Jadick, G.; Schlafly, G.; La Riviere, P.

2023-06-29 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2023.06.22.23291766 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeSingle-energy computed tomography (CT) often suffers from poor contrast, yet it remains critical for effec-tive radiotherapy treatment. Modern therapy systems are often equipped with both megavoltage (MV) and kilovoltage (kV) x-ray sources and thus already possess the hardware needed for dual-energy (DE) CT. There exists an unexplored potential for enhanced image contrast using MV-kV DE-CT in radiotherapy contexts. ApproachA toy model comprising a single-line integral through a two-material object was designed for computing basis material signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) using estimation theory. Five dose-matched spectra (three kV, two MV) and three variables were considered: spectral combination, spectral dose allocation, and object material composition. The single-line model was extended to a simulated fan-beam CT acquisition of an anthropomorphic phantom with and without a metal implant. Basis material sinograms were computed and synthesized into virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs). MV-kV and kV-kV VMIs were compared with single-energy images. ResultsThe 80kV-140kV pair typically yielded the best SNRs, but for bone thicknesses greater than 8 cm, the detunedMV-80kV pair surpassed it. Peak MV-kV SNR was achieved with approximately 90% dose allocated to the MV spectrum. For the CT simulations, MV-kV VMIs yielded a higher contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) than single-energy CT at specific monoenergies. With the metal implant, MV-kV produced a higher maximum CNR and lower minimum root-mean-square-error than kV-kV. ConclusionsThis work quantitatively analyzes MV-kV DE-CT imaging and assesses its potential advantages. This technique may yield improved contrast and accuracy relative to dose-matched single-energy CT or kV-kV DE-CT, depending on object composition.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.