MO-F-CAMPUS-J-04: One-Year Analysis of Elekta CBCT Image Quality Using NPS and MTF

Authors

  • Nakahara S,

    1. Hiroshima International University, Hiroshma, Hiroshima
    2. Hiroshima International University, Hiroshma, Hiroshima
    3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Tachibana M,

    1. Hiroshima International University, Hiroshma, Hiroshima
    2. Hiroshima International University, Hiroshma, Hiroshima
    3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Watanabe Y

    1. Hiroshima International University, Hiroshma, Hiroshima
    2. Hiroshima International University, Hiroshma, Hiroshima
    3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Purpose:

To compare quantitative image quality (IQ) evaluation methods using Noise Power Spectrum (NPS) and Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) with standard IQ analyses for minimizing the observer subjectivity of the standard methods and maximizing the information content.

Methods:

For our routine IQ tests of Elekta XVI Cone-Beam CT, image noise was quantified by the standard deviation of CT number (CT#) (Sigma) over a small area in an IQ test phantom (CatPhan), and the high spatial resolution (HSR) was evaluated by the number of line-pairs (LP#) visually recognizable on the image. We also measured the image uniformity, the low contrast resolution ratio, and the distances of two points for geometrical accuracy. For this study, we did additional evaluation of the XVI data for 12 monthly IQ tests by using NPS for noise, MTF for HSR, and the CT#-to-density relationship. NPS was obtained by applying Fourier analysis in a small area on the uniformity test section of CatPhan. The MTF analysis was performed by applying the Droege-Morin (D-M) method to the line pairs on the phantom. The CT#-to-density was obtained for inserts in the low-contrast test section of the phantom.

Results:

All the quantities showed a noticeable change over the one-year period. Especially the noise level changed significantly after a repair of the imager. NPS was more sensitive to the IQ change than Sigma. MTF could provide more quantitative and objective evaluation of the HSR. The CT# was very different from the expected CT#; but, the CT#-to-density curves were constant within 5% except two months.

Conclusion:

Since the D-M method is easy to implement, we recommend using MTF instead of the LP# even for routine periodic QA. The month-to-month variation of IQ was not negligible; hence a routine IQ test must be performed, particularly after any modification of hardware including detector calibration.

Ancillary