Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Marsh, R

Publications and source records attributed to Marsh, R.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-I-37: How Fat Distribution and Table Height Affect Estimates of Patient Size in CT Scanning: A Phantom Study

Purpose: Localizer projection radiographs acquired prior to CT scans are used to estimate patient size, affecting the function of Automatic Tube Current Modulation (ATCM) and hence CTDIvol and SSDE. Due to geometric effects, the projected patient size varies with scanner table height and with the orientation of the localizer (AP versus PA). This study sought to determine if patient size estimates made from localizer scans is affected by variations in fat distribution, specifically when the widest part of the patient is not at the geometric center of the patient. Methods: Lipid gel bolus material was wrapped around an anthropomorphic phantom to simulate two different body mass distributions. The first represented a patient with fairly rigid fat and had a generally oval shape. The second was bell-shaped, representing corpulent patients more susceptible to gravity’s lustful tug. Each phantom configuration was imaged using an AP localizer and then a PA localizer. This was repeated at various scanner table heights. The width of the phantom was measured from the localizer and diagnostic images using in-house software. Results: 1) The projected phantom width varied up to 39% as table height changed.2) At some table heights, the width of the phantom, designed to represent larger patients, exceeded the localizer field of view, resulting in an underestimation of the phantom width.3) The oval-shaped phantom approached a normalized phantom width of 1 at a table height several centimeters lower (AP localizer) or higher (PA localizer) than did the bell-shaped phantom. Conclusion: Accurate estimation of patient size from localizer scans is dependent on patient positioning with respect to scanner isocenter and is limited in large patients. Further, patient size is more accurately measured on projection images if the widest part of the patient, rather than the geometric center of the patient, is positioned at scanner isocenter.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-G-206-11: The Effect of Table Height On CTDIvol and SSDE in CT Scanning: A Phantom Study

Purpose: Localizer projection radiographs acquired prior to CT scans are used to estimate patient size, affecting the function of Automatic Tube Current Modulation (ATCM) and calculation of the Size Specific Dose Estimate (SSDE). Due to geometric effects, the projected patient size varies with scanner table height and with the orientation of the localizer (AP versus PA). Consequently, variations in scanner table height may affect both CTDIvol and the calculated size-corrected dose index (SSDE). This study sought to characterize these effects. Methods: An anthropomorphic phantom was imaged using an AP localizer, followed by a diagnostic scan using ATCM and our institution’s routine abdomen protocol. This was repeated at various scanner table heights, recording the scanner-reported CTDIvol for each diagnostic scan. The width of the phantom was measured from the localizer and diagnostic images using in-house software. The measured phantom width and scanner-reported CTDIvol were used to calculate SSDE. This was repeated using PA localizers followed by diagnostic scans. Results: 1) The localizer-based phantom width varied by up to 54% of the nominal phantom width between minimum and maximum table heights. 2) Changing the table height caused a variation in scanner-reported CTDIvol of a factor greater than 4.6 when using a PA localizer and almost 2 when using an AP localizer. 3) SSDE, calculated from measured phantom size and scanner-reported CTDIvol, varied by a factor of more than 2.8 when using a PA localizer and almost 1.5 when using an AP localizer. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that off-center patient positioning affects the efficacy of ATCM, more severely when localizers are acquired in the PA rather than AP projection. Further, patient positioning errors can cause a large variation in the calculated SSDE. This hinders interpretation of SSDE for individual patients and aggregate SSDE data when evaluating CT protocols and clinical practices.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-G-TeP4-14: Quality Control of Treatment Planning Using Knowledge-Based Planning Across a System of Radiation Oncology Practices

Purpose: There is potentially a wide variation in plan quality for a certain disease site, even for clinics located in the same system of hospitals. We have used a prostate-specific knowledge-based planning (KBP) model as a quality control tool to investigate the variation in prostate treatment planning across a network of affiliated radiation oncology departments. Methods: A previously created KBP model was applied to 10 patients each from 4 community-based clinics (Clinics A, B, C, and D). The KBP model was developed using RapidPlan (Eclipse v13.5, Varian Medical Systems) from 60 prostate/prostate bed IMRT plans that were originally planned using an in-house treatment planning system at the central institution of the community-based clinics. The dosimetric plan quality (target coverage and normal-tissue sparing) of each model-generated plan was compared to the respective clinically-used plan. Each community-based clinic utilized the same planning goals to develop the clinically-used plans that were used at the main institution. Results: Across all 4 clinics, the model-generated plans decreased the mean dose to the rectum by varying amounts (on average, 12.5, 2.6, 4.5, and 2.7 Gy for Clinics A, B, C, and D, respectively). The mean dose to the bladder also decreased with the model-generated plans (5.4, 2.3, 3.0, and 4.1 Gy, respectively). The KBP model also identified that target coverage (D95%) improvements were possible for for Clinics A, B, and D (0.12, 1.65, and 2.75%) while target coverage decreased by 0.72% for Clinic C, demonstrating potentially different trade-offs made in clinical plans at different institutions. Conclusion: Quality control of dosimetric plan quality across a system of radiation oncology practices is possible with knowledge-based planning. By using a quality KBP model, smaller community-based clinics can potentially identify the areas of their treatment plans that may be improved, whether it be in normal-tissue sparing or improved target coverage. M. Matuszak has research funding for KBP from Varian Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗