Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:14:15.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commissioning a new CT simulator II: virtual simulation software

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2007

D. Kearns  and
M. McJury
D. Kearns*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, N. Ireland
M. McJury
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, N. Ireland
*
Correspondence to: D. Kearns, Department of Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7AB, N. Ireland. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper continues the discussion on the commissioning tests performed on a new GE Lightspeed RT wide-bore computed tomography (CT) scanner, focusing on the GE Advantage Sim software (version 6.0).

The tests performed and phantoms used to assess the virtual simulator functionality, including the 3D image display, contouring, treatment unit beam parameters, digitally reconstructed radiograph generation and image quality, isocentre generation and multi-modality image registration, are described.

The series of tests performed showed the virtual simulation software to be working within acceptance tolerances suggested in the literature and baseline data have been obtained against which future comparisons of system performance have been made. Where no tolerances were available, we have suggested suitable values.

Keywords

Commissioningquality assurancevirtual simulation software
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 163 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

McJury, M, Foran, B, Conway, J, Dixon, S, Wilcock, K, Brown, G, Robinson, MH. Optimising the use of virtual and conventional simulation: a clinical and ecconimic analysis. J Radiat Prot 2007; 6:1–9.Google Scholar
Sherouse, GW, Chaney, EL. The portable virtual simulator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:475–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutic, S, Palta, JR, Butker, EK, Das, IJ, Huq, MS, Loo, LN, Salter, BJ, McCollough, CH, Van Dyk, J. Quality assurance for computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 66. Med Phys 2003; 30(10):2762–2792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borgefors, G. Hierarchical chamfer matching: a parametrical edge matching algorithm. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1988; 10:849–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maes, F, Collignon, A, Vandermuelen, D, Marchal, G, Suetens, P. Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1997; 16:187–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viola, P, Wells, WM. Alignment by maximization of mutual information. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Computer Vision 1995; 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, DL, Neelin, P, Peters, TM, Evans, AC. Automatic 3D intersubject registration of MR volumetric data in standardised Talairach space. J Comp Assist Tomogr 1994;18:192–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woods, RP, Maziotta, JC, Cherry, SR. MRI-PET registration with automated algorithm. J Comp Assist Tomogr 1993;17:536–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraass, B, Doppke, K, Hunt, M, Kutcher, G, Starkschall, G, Stern, R, Van Dyke, J. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1998; 25:1773–1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, J, Fitzpatrick, JM, Wang, MY et al. . Comparison and evaluation of retrospective intermodality image registration techniques. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21:554–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daisne, JF, Sibomana, M, Bol, A, Cosnard, G, Lonneux, M, Gregoire, V. Evaluation of a multimodality image (CT, MRI and PET) coregistration procedure of phantom and head and neck cancer patients: accuracy, reproducibility and consistency. Radiother Oncol 2003; 69:237–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, CS, Liney, GP, Beavis, AW. Quality assurance of registration of CT and MRI data sets for treatment planning of radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2004;5:25–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutic, S, Dempsey, JF, Bosch, WR, Low, DA, Drzymala, RE, Chao, KS, Goddu, SM, Cutler, PD, Purdy, JA. Multimodality image registration quality assurance for conformal three-dimensional treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51:255–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurfjell, L, Pagani, M, Andersson, JLR. Registration of neuroimaging data: implementation and clinical applications. J Neuroimaging 2000;10:39–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuk, T, Atkins, S, Booth, K. Approaches to registration using 3D surfaces. In: Loew, MH (ed). Medical Imaging: Image Processing. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press 1994; 2167:176–187.Google Scholar
Hutton, BF, Braun, M. Software for image registration: algorithms, accuracy, efficacy. Semin Nucl Med 2003;33:180–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, KP, Das, IJ. Commissioning, acceptance testing, and quality assurance of a CT simulator. In: Coia, LR, Schultheiss, TE, Hanks, GE (eds). A Practical Guide to CT Simulation. Madison, WI: Advanced Medical Publishing, 1995:5–23.Google Scholar
Eberl, S, Kanno, I, Fulton, RR, Ryan, A, Hutton, BF, Fulham, MJ. Automated interstudy image registration technique for SPECT and PET. J Nucl Med 1996; 37:137–145.Google ScholarPubMed
Woods, RP, Grafton, ST, Holmes, CJ, Cherry, SR, Mazziotta, JC. Automated image registration: I. general methods and intrasubject, intramodality validation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998; 22:139–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lau, YH, Braun, M, Hutton, BF. Registration of SPET and CT abdominal images using a symmetric correlation ratio. Nucl Med Commun 2000; 21:491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, M, Hill, DL, Denton, ER, Jarosz, JM, Cox, TC, Rohlfing, T, Goodey, J, Hawkes, DJ. Voxel similarity measures for 3-D serial MR brain image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2000; 19:94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, L, Kwiatek, R, Lau, Y. Validation of fully automatic brain SPECT to MR co-registration. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:147–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, J C H, Studholme, C, Hawkes, D J, Maisey, M N. Evaluation of the limits of visual detection of image misregistration in a brain fluorine-18 fluorodexyglucose PET-MRI study. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24:642–650.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J M, Hill, D L G, Shyr, Y, West, J, Studholme, C, Maurer, C R. Visual assessment of the accuracy of retrospective registration of MR and CT images of the brain. IEEE Trans Med Imag 1998;17:571–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ardekani, B A, Braun, M, Hutton, B F, Kanno, I, Iida, H.A fully automatic multimodality image registration algorithm. J Comp Assist Tomog 1995; 19:615–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed