Low-dose cone-beam CT (LD-CBCT) reconstruction for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) by three-dimensional dual-dictionary learning
Low-dose cone-beam CT (LD-CBCT) reconstruction for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) by three-dimensional dual-dictionary learning
复制标题
通过三维双字典学习进行图像引导放射治疗 (IGRT) 的低剂量锥形束 CT (LD-CBCT) 重建
DOI：
10.1186/s13014-020-01630-3
复制
发表时间：
2020-08-12
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Zhao, Jun
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Song, Ying;Zhang, Weikang;Zhao, Jun
背景研究一种用于图像引导放射治疗（IGRT）的低剂量锥形束CT（LD-CBCT）重建方法--同步代数重建技术和双字典学习（SART-Dual-Dictionary Learning，SART-SVM）联合算法，并对其成像质量和临床应用能力进行评价。方法回顾性分析2018年2月至2018年7月在华西医院随机收集的62个CBCT图像集，来自42例头颈部患者（平均[标准差]年龄49.7 [11.4]岁，女性12例，男性30例）。所有图像集均通过SART-OCT（所得D-CBCT图像集）进行回顾性重建，临床原始投影减少18%。通过定量参数评价重建质量，并与SART和总变差最小化（SART-TV）联合重建算法进行配对检验比较。由两名肿瘤学家以盲态方式与临床使用的Feldkamp-Davis-Kress算法CBCT图像（所得F-CBCT图像集）进行五级主观分级评价，并通过配对Wilcoxon秩检验比较分级结果。比较D-CBCT与F-CBCT的配准结果。测试了D-CBCT图像几何保真度。结果D-CBCT的平均峰值信噪比比SART-TV重建高1.7 dB（P < .001，SART-DDL vs SART-TV，36.36 +/- 0.55 dB vs 34.68 +/- 0.28 dB）。所有D-CBCT图像均被认为是临床可接受的，与F-CBCT在主观评分方面无显著差异（P > .05）。在临床配准中，最大平移和旋转差分别为1.8 mm和1.7 °。D-CBCT的水平、垂直和矢状面几何保真度均可接受。结论D-CBCT在头颈部病变中的图像质量、几何逼真度和临床应用能力与F-CBCT相当，SART-SPECT投影减少18%。
Background To develop a low-dose cone beam CT (LD-CBCT) reconstruction method named simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique and dual-dictionary learning (SART-DDL) joint algorithm for image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) and evaluate its imaging quality and clinical application ability. Methods In this retrospective study, 62 CBCT image sets from February 2018 to July 2018 at west china hospital were randomly collected from 42 head and neck patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 49.7 [11.4] years, 12 females and 30 males). All image sets were retrospectively reconstructed by SART-DDL (resultant D-CBCT image sets) with 18% less clinical raw projections. Reconstruction quality was evaluated by quantitative parameters compared with SART and Total Variation minimization (SART-TV) joint reconstruction algorithm with pairedttest. Five-grade subjective grading evaluations were done by two oncologists in a blind manner compared with clinically used Feldkamp-Davis-Kress algorithm CBCT images (resultant F-CBCT image sets) and the grading results were compared by paired Wilcoxon rank test. Registration results between D-CBCT and F-CBCT were compared. D-CBCT image geometry fidelity was tested. Results The mean peak signal to noise ratio of D-CBCT was 1.7 dB higher than SART-TV reconstructions (P < .001, SART-DDL vs SART-TV, 36.36 +/- 0.55 dB vs 34.68 +/- 0.28 dB). All D-CBCT images were recognized as clinically acceptable without significant difference with F-CBCT in subjective grading (P > .05). In clinical registration, the maximum translational and rotational difference was 1.8 mm and 1.7 degree respectively. The horizontal, vertical and sagittal geometry fidelity of D-CBCT were acceptable. Conclusions The image quality, geometry fidelity and clinical application ability of D-CBCT are comparable to that of the F-CBCT for head-and-neck patients with 18% less projections by SART-DDL.