Quantitative image quality evaluation of pelvic computed tomography-based imaging systems: A novel concept in radiotherapy

References

• Båth M, Månsson LG. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: A non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 2007;80:169–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Båth M, Zachrisson S, Månsson LG. VGC analysis: Application of the ROC methodology to visual grading tasks. In: Proc SPIE 2008;6917:69170X–1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Vestergaard A, Søndergaard J, Petersen JB, Høyer M, Muren LP. A comparison of three different adaptive strategies in image-guided radiotherapy of bladder cancer. Acta Oncol 2010;49:1069–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöström D, Bjelkengren U, Ottosson W, Behrens CF. A beam-matching concept for medical linear accelerators. Acta Oncol 2009;48:192–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Report EUR 16260 EN; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262 EN; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Zachrisson S, Hansson J, Cederblad Å, Geterud K, Båth M. Optimisation of tube voltage for conventional urography using a Gd2O2S:Tb flat panel detector. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139:86–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leander P, Söderberg M, Fält T, Gunnarsson M, Albertsson I. Post-processing image filtration enabling dose reduction in standard abdominal CT. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139: 180–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burmeister HP, Baltzer PAT, Möslein C, Bitter T, Gudziol H, Dietzel M, et al. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis of diagnostic image quality for high resolution 3 tesla MRI volumetry of the olfactory bulb. Acad Radiol 2011; 18:634–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DBM MRMC; 2013. Available from: http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu/Software/tabid/109/Default.aspx, Free download for registered users. [cited 2013 April 20].
   Google Scholar
• Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen YF, Donaghy BA. Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: Factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 1998;5: 591–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis SL. A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 2007;26:596–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis SL, Berbaum KS. Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 2005;12:1534–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis SL, Berbaum KS. Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. Acad Radiol 2004;11:1260–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 2008;15:647–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS. A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 2005;24:1579–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989;24:234–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanhede B, Båth M, Kheddache S, Sund P, Björneld L, Widell M, et al. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. Br J Radiol 2002;75: 38–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Månsson L. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: A review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000;90:89–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Erkel AR, Pattynama PMT. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis: Basic principles and applications in radiology. Eur J Radiol 1998;27:88–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stock M, Pasler M, Birkfellner W, Homolka P, Poetter R, Georg D. Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study. Radiother Oncol 2009;93:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lou Y, Niu T, Jia X, Vela PA, Zhu L, Tannenbaum AR.Joint CT/CBCT deformable registration and CBCT enhancement for cancer radiotherapy. Med Image Anal 2013;17:387–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niu T, Al-Basheer A, Zhu L. Quantitative cone-beam CT imaging in radiation therapy using planning CT as a prior: First patient studies. Med Phys 2012;39:1991–2000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poludniowski G, Evans PM, Hansen VN, Webb S. An efficient Monte Carlo-based algorithm for scatter correction in keV cone-beam CT. Phys Med Biol 2009;54:3847–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainegra-Hing E, Kawrakow I. Variance reduction techniques for fast Monte Carlo CBCT scatter correction calculations. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:4495–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jina JY, Ren L, Liu Q, Kim J, Wen N, Guan H, et al. Combining scatter reduction and correction to improve image quality in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Med Phys 2010;37:5634–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiu W, Pengpan T, Smith ND, Soleimani M. Evaluating iterative algebraic algorithms in terms of convergence and image quality for cone beam CT. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2013;109:313–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamath S, Song W, Chvetsov A, Ozawa S, Lu H, Samant S, et al. An image quality comparison study between XVI and OBI CBCT systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011;12: 376–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S, Yoo S, Yin FF, Samei E, Yoshizumi T. Kilovoltage cone-beam CT: Comparative dose and image quality evaluations in partial and full-angle scan protocols. Med Phys 2010;37:3648–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elstrøm UV, Muren LP, Petersen JB, Grau C. Evaluation of image quality for different kV cone-beam CT acquisition and reconstruction methods in the head and neck region. Acta Oncol 2011;50:908–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar