A direct comparison of multi-energy x-ray and proton CT for imaging and relative stopping power estimation of plastic and ex-vivo phantoms

<i>Objective.</i>Proton therapy administers a highly conformal dose to the tumour region, necessitating accurate prediction of the patient's 3D map of proton relative stopping power (RSP) compared to water. This remains challenging due to inaccuracies inherent in single-energy computed tomography (SECT) calibration. Recent advancements in spectral x-ray CT (xCT) and proton CT (pCT) have shown improved RSP estimation compared to traditional SECT methods. This study aims to provide the first comparison of the imaging and RSP estimation performance among dual-energy CT (DECT) and photon-counting CT (PCCT) scanners, and a pCT system prototype.<i>Approach.</i>Two phantoms were scanned with the three systems for their performance characterisation: a plastic phantom, filled with water and containing four plastic inserts and a wood insert, and a heterogeneous biological phantom, containing a formalin-stabilised bovine specimen. RSP maps were generated by converting CT numbers to RSP using a calibration based on low- and high-energy xCT images, while pCT utilised a distance-driven filtered back projection algorithm for RSP reconstruction. Spatial resolution, noise, and RSP accuracy were compared across the resulting images.<i>Main results.</i>All three systems exhibited similar spatial resolution of around 0.54 lp/mm for the plastic phantom. The PCCT images were less noisy than the DECT images at the same dose level. The lowest mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of RSP,(0.28±0.07)%, was obtained with the pCT system, compared to MAPE values of(0.51±0.08)%and(0.80±0.08)%for the DECT- and PCCT-based methods, respectively. For the biological phantom, the xCT-based methods resulted in higher RSP values in most of the voxels compared to pCT.<i>Significance.</i>The pCT system yielded the most accurate estimation of RSP values for the plastic materials, and was thus used to benchmark the xCT calibration performance on the biological phantom. This study underlined the potential benefits and constraints of utilising such a novel<i>ex-vivo</i>phantom for inter-centre surveys in future.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Published
2024-08-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ad70ef
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.29

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A direct comparison of multi-energy x-ray and proton CT for imaging and relative stopping power estimation of plastic and ex-vivo phantoms

Katia Parodi, M. Scaringella, Paolo Farace, Francesco Tommasino et al.
7 citations
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
1.29
article

A direct comparison of multi-energy x-ray and proton CT for imaging and relative stopping power estimation of plastic and ex-vivo phantoms

Katia Parodi, M. Scaringella, Paolo Farace, Francesco Tommasino, Florian Schwarz, Franka Risch, Katharina Niepel, Jens Ricke, Bastian O. Sabel, M. Bruzzi, Thomas Kröncke, Guillaume Landry, Elena Fogazzi, C. Civinini, Guyue Hu
article en
7 citations

Abstract

<i>Objective.</i>Proton therapy administers a highly conformal dose to the tumour region, necessitating accurate prediction of the patient's 3D map of proton relative stopping power (RSP) compared to water. This remains challenging due to inaccuracies inherent in single-energy computed tomography (SECT) calibration. Recent advancements in spectral x-ray CT (xCT) and proton CT (pCT) have shown improved RSP estimation compared to traditional SECT methods. This study aims to provide the first comparison of the imaging and RSP estimation performance among dual-energy CT (DECT) and photon-counting CT (PCCT) scanners, and a pCT system prototype.<i>Approach.</i>Two phantoms were scanned with the three systems for their performance characterisation: a plastic phantom, filled with water and containing four plastic inserts and a wood insert, and a heterogeneous biological phantom, containing a formalin-stabilised bovine specimen. RSP maps were generated by converting CT numbers to RSP using a calibration based on low- and high-energy xCT images, while pCT utilised a distance-driven filtered back projection algorithm for RSP reconstruction. Spatial resolution, noise, and RSP accuracy were compared across the resulting images.<i>Main results.</i>All three systems exhibited similar spatial resolution of around 0.54 lp/mm for the plastic phantom. The PCCT images were less noisy than the DECT images at the same dose level. The lowest mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of RSP,(0.28±0.07)%, was obtained with the pCT system, compared to MAPE values of(0.51±0.08)%and(0.80±0.08)%for the DECT- and PCCT-based methods, respectively. For the biological phantom, the xCT-based methods resulted in higher RSP values in most of the voxels compared to pCT.<i>Significance.</i>The pCT system yielded the most accurate estimation of RSP values for the plastic materials, and was thus used to benchmark the xCT calibration performance on the biological phantom. This study underlined the potential benefits and constraints of utilising such a novel<i>ex-vivo</i>phantom for inter-centre surveys in future.

Physics in Medicine and BiologyVol. 69(17)
University of Trento (IT), University Hospital Augsburg (DE), LMU Klinikum (DE), Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics And Applications (IT), Provincia Autonoma di Trento (IT), National Interuniversity Consortium of Materials Science and Technology (IT), Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DE), University of Florence (IT), Technical University of Munich (DE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Nuclear Physics, Commissione Scientifica Nazionale 5, Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
1.29
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.