Journal of Radiation Protection and Research

The Korean Association for Radiation Protection (대한방사선방어학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Deriving the Effective Atomic Number with a Dual-Energy Image Set Acquired by the Big Bore CT Simulator

  • Jung, Seongmoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Bitbyeol (Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center) ;
  • Kim, Jung-in (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Park, Jong Min (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Chang Heon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2020.11.09
  • Accepted : 2020.12.09
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: This study aims to determine the effective atomic number (Zeff) from dual-energy image sets obtained using a conventional computed tomography (CT) simulator. The estimated Zeff can be used for deriving the stopping power and material decomposition of CT images, thereby improving dose calculations in radiation therapy. Materials and Methods: An electron-density phantom was scanned using Philips Brilliance CT Big Bore at 80 and 140 kVp. The estimated Zeff values were compared with those obtained using the calibration phantom by applying the Rutherford, Schneider, and Joshi methods. The fitting parameters were optimized using the nonlinear least squares regression algorithm. The fitting curve and mass attenuation data were obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The fitting parameters obtained from stopping power and material decomposition of CT images, were validated by estimating the residual errors between the reference and calculated Zeff values. Next, the calculation accuracy of Zeff was evaluated by comparing the calculated values with the reference Zeff values of insert plugs. The exposure levels of patients under additional CT scanning at 80, 120, and 140 kVp were evaluated by measuring the weighted CT dose index (CTDIw). Results and Discussion: The residual errors of the fitting parameters were lower than 2%. The best and worst Zeff values were obtained using the Schneider and Joshi methods, respectively. The maximum differences between the reference and calculated values were 11.3% (for lung during inhalation), 4.7% (for adipose tissue), and 9.8% (for lung during inhalation) when applying the Rutherford, Schneider, and Joshi methods, respectively. Under dual-energy scanning (80 and 140 kVp), the patient exposure level was approximately twice that in general single-energy scanning (120 kVp). Conclusion: Zeff was calculated from two image sets scanned by conventional single-energy CT simulator. The results obtained using three different methods were compared. The Zeff calculation based on single-energy exhibited appropriate feasibility.

Keywords

References

  1. Yang M, Zhu XR, Park PC, Titt U, Mohan R, Virshup G, et al. Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to patient stopping-power-ratio estimation using the stoichiometric calibration. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:4095-4115. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/13/4095
  2. Li B, Lee HC, Duan X, Shen C, Zhou L, Jia X, et al. Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to stopping-powerratio estimation using dual-energy CT imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:7056-7074. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/62/17/7056
  3. Hudobivnik N, Schwarz F, Johnson T, Agolli L, Dedes G, Tessonnier T, et al. Comparison of proton therapy treatment planning for head tumors with a pencil beam algorithm on dual and single energy CT images. Med Phys. 2016;43:495. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4939106
  4. Bourque AE, Carrier JF, Bouchard H. A stoichiometric calibration method for dual energy computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:2059-2088. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/8/2059
  5. Landry G, Seco J, Gaudreault M, Verhaegen F. Deriving effective atomic numbers from DECT based on a parameterization of the ratio of high and low linear attenuation coefficients. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:6851-6866. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/19/6851
  6. Goo HW, Goo JM. Dual-energy CT: new horizon in medical imaging. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18:555-569. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.555
  7. Farace P. Experimental verification of ion stopping power prediction from dual energy CT data in tissue surrogates. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:7081-7084. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/22/7081
  8. Hunemohr N, Krauss B, Tremmel C, Ackermann B, Jakel O, Greilich S. Experimental verification of ion stopping power prediction from dual energy CT data in tissue surrogates. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:83-96. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/1/83
  9. Wohlfahrt P, Mohler C, Stutzer K, Greilich S, Richter C. Dual-energy CT based proton range prediction in head and pelvic tumor patients. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125:526-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.042
  10. Zhu J, Penfold SN. Dosimetric comparison of stopping power calibration with dual-energy CT and single-energy CT in proton therapy treatment planning. Med Phys. 2016;43:2845-2854. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4948683
  11. Garcia LI, Azorin JF, Almansa JF. A new method to measure electron density and effective atomic number using dual-energy CT images. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:265-279. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/1/265
  12. Hua CH, Shapira N, Merchant TE, Klahr P, Yagil Y. Accuracy of electron density, effective atomic number, and iodine concentration determination with a dual-layer dual-energy computed tomography system. Med Phys. 2018;45:2486-2497. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12903
  13. Mayneord WV. The significance of the roentgen. Acta Int Union Against Cancer. 1937;2:271-282.
  14. Rutherford RA, Pullan BR, Isherwood I. Measurement of effective atomic number and electron density using an EMI scanner. Neuroradiology. 1976;11:15-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00327253
  15. Schneider W, Bortfeld T, Schlegel W. Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:459-478. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/2/314
  16. Joshi M, Langan DA, Sahani DS, Kambadakone A, Aluri S, Procknow K, et al. Effective atomic number accuracy for kidney stone characterization using spectral CT. In: Medical imaging 2010: physics of medical imaging (Vol. 7622). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics; 2010. p. 76223K.
  17. Boone JM, Seibert JA. An accurate method for computer-generating tungsten anode x-ray spectra from 30 to 140 kV. Med Phys. 1997;24:1661-1670. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597953

Cited by

  1. Gold coated contact lens-type ocular in vivo dosimeter (CLOD) for monitoring of low dose in computed tomography: A Monte Carlo study vol.92, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.10.016