Quantitative imaging performance of MARS spectral photon‐counting CT for radiotherapy. Issue 8 (4th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Simard, Mikaël; Panta, Raj Kumar; Bell, Stephen T.; Butler, Anthony P.H.; Bouchard, Hugo
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 47:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 3423
• Page End: 3434
• Publication Date: 2020-06-04
• Subjects: contrast‐enhanced CT -- dual‐energy CT -- Medipix -- radiotherapy -- quantitative imaging -- spectral photon‐counting CT; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.14204
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To evaluate the quantitative imaging performance of a spectral photon‐counting computed tomography (SPCCT) scanner for radiotherapy applications. An experimental comparison of the quantitative performance of a Siemens dual‐energy CT (DECT) and a MARS SPCCT scanner is performed to estimate physical properties relevant to radiotherapy of human substitute materials and contrast agent solutions. In human substitute materials, the accuracy of quantities relevant to photon therapy, proton therapy, and Monte‐Carlo simulations, such as the electron density, proton stopping power, and elemental composition is evaluated. For contrast agent solutions, the accuracy of the contrast agent concentrations and the virtual non‐contrast (VNC) electron density is evaluated. Methods: Human tissue substitute phantoms (Gammex 467 and 472) as well as diluted solutions of contrast agents (iodine and gadolinium based) are scanned with two commercial systems: a Siemens dual‐source CT (SOMATOM Definition Flash, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) and a MARS spectral photon‐counting micro‐CT (MARS V5.2, MARS Bioimaging Ltd., Christchurch, New Zealand). Material decomposition is performed in a maximum a posteriori framework with an optimized material basis tailored to characterize either human substitute materials or contrast agents in the context of experimental multi‐energy CT data. Results: The root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of the electron density calculated over all Gammex inserts is reduced from 1.09 to 0.89% when going from DECT to SPCCT. For the proton stopping power, the RMSE is reduced from 1.92 to 0.89%. Elemental mass fractions of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and calcium are more accurately estimated with the MARS scanner. The RMSE on the iodine‐based contrast agents concentration is reduced from 0.27 to 0.12 mg/mL with SPCCT, and the VNC electron density from 0.40 to 0.22%. Conclusion: In the present phantom study, a MARS photon‐counting scanner provides superior accuracy compared to a Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash DECT scanner to quantify physical parameters relevant to radiotherapy. This work experimentally demonstrates the benefits of using more energies to characterize human tissue equivalent materials. This highlights the potential of SPCCT for particle therapy, where more accurate tissue characterization is needed, as well as for Monte‐Carlo based planning, which requires accurate elemental mass fractions.