This will count as one of your downloads.
You will have access to both the presentation and article (if available).
Methods: Important aspects of CBCT angiography were investigated, weighting tradeoffs among the magnitude of iodine enhancement (peak contrast), the degree of data consistency, and the degree of data sparsity. Simulation studies were performed across a range of CBCT half-scan acquisition speed ranging ~3 – 17 s. Experiments were conducted using a CBCT prototype and an anthropomorphic neurovascular phantom incorporating a vessel with contrast injection with a time-attenuation (TAC) injection giving low data consistency but high peak contrast. Images were reconstructed using filtered back-projection (FBP), penalized likelihood (PL), and the RoD algorithm. Data were evaluated in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) in image enhancement as well as overall image noise and artifact.
Results: Feasibility was demonstrated for 3D angiographic assessment in CBCT images acquired across a range of data consistency and sparsity. Compared to FBP, the RoD method reduced the RMSE in reconstructed images by 50.0% in simulation studies (fixed peak contrast; variable data consistency and sparsity). The improvement in RMSE compared to PL reconstruction was 28.8%. The phantom experiments investigated conditions of low data consistency, RoD provided a 15.6% reduction in RMSE compared to FBP and a 16.3% reduction compared to PL, showing the feasibility of RoD method for slow-rotating CBCT-A system.
Conclusions: Simulations and phantom experiments show the feasibility and improved performance of the RoD approach compared to FBP and PL reconstruction, enabling 3D neuro-angiography on a slowly rotating CBCT system (e.g., 17.1s for a half-scan). The algorithm is relatively robust against data sparsity and is sensitive in detecting low levels of contrast enhancement from the baseline (mask) scan. Tradeoffs among peak contrast, data consistency, and data sparsity are demonstrated clearly in each experiment and help to guide the development of optimal contrast injection protocols for future preclinical and clinical studies.
Methods: The tradeoffs in dose and image quality were investigated as a function of analytical (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (PWLS) algorithm parameters using phantoms with ICH-mimicking inserts. Image quality in clinical applications was evaluated in a human cadaver imaged with simulated ICH. Objects outside of the field of view (FOV), such as the head-holder, were found to introduce challenging truncation artifacts in PWLS that were mitigated with a novel multi-resolution reconstruction strategy. Following phantom and cadaver studies, the scanner was translated to a clinical pilot study. Initial clinical experience indicates the presence of motion in some patient scans, and an image-based motion estimation method that does not require fiducial tracking or prior patient information was implemented and evaluated.
Results: The weighted CTDI for a nominal scan technique was 22.8 mGy. The high-resolution FBP reconstruction protocol achieved < 0.9 mm full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the point spread function (PSF). The PWLS soft-tissue reconstruction showed <1.2 mm PSF FWHM and lower noise than FBP at the same resolution. Effects of truncation in PWLS were mitigated with the multi-resolution approach, resulting in 60% reduction in root mean squared error compared to conventional PWLS. Cadaver images showed clear visualization of anatomical landmarks (ventricles and sulci), and ICH was conspicuous. The motion compensation method was shown in clinical studies to restore visibility of fine bone structures, such as the subtle fracture, cranial sutures, and the cochlea as well as subtle low-contrast structures in the brain parenchyma.
Conclusion: The imaging performance of the prototype suggests sufficient quality for ICH imaging and motivates continued clinical studies to assess the diagnosis utility of the CBCT system in realistic clinical scenarios at the point of care.
This course provides attendees with a basic working knowledge of image processing methods and image quality matrices for digital projection radiography. Many image examples are included throughout the course to help you become fluent in the fundamentals of the covered topics. The course contains three aspects: image-rendering processing, processing features that are enabled by advanced image processing, and image quality assurance.
The image-rendering processing section will cover major image processing components, such as data preprocessing, segmentation and analysis, tonal rendering with consideration of the human visual system, and spatial frequency methods for signal equalization, contrast enhancement, and noise suppression. The course will also include a review of ambient viewing conditions, display response and calibration.
The image processing features section will include anti-scatter grid line pattern detection and suppression, long-length imaging, dual energy imaging, and quality control testing.
The quality assurance section will address issues that that might cause the need for an image to be rejected and then repeated. The cause of various quality assurance deficiencies will be described and the appearance of the QA deficiencies in images will be demonstrated. Reject analysis will also be explained, including a discussion of important considerations to ensure the integrity of the data.
The course material will also include a comparison of objective measures of visual image quality such as observer performance, versus qualitative approaches for assessing image quality such as subjective rank-order and comparative feature analysis.
The course will conclude by reviewing various strategies for optimizing radiographic image quality.
View contact details
