Evaluating the impact of extended field‐of‐view CT reconstructions on CT values and dosimetric accuracy for radiation therapy
Authors: Cheung Joey P. , Shugard Erin , Mistry Nilesh , Pouliot Jean , Chen Josephine 
Published: November 2018

Purpose

Wide bore CT scanners use extended field‐of‐view (eFOV) reconstruction algorithms to attempt to recreate tissue truncated due to large patient habitus. Radiation therapy planning systems rely on accurate CT numbers in order to correctly plan and calculate radiation dose. This study looks at the impact of eFOV reconstructions on CT numbers and radiation dose calculations in real patient geometries.

Methods

A large modular phantom based on real patient geometries was created to surround a CIRS Model 062M phantom. The modular sections included a smooth patient surface, a skin fold in the patient surface, and the addition of arms for simulation of the patient in arms up or arms down position. This phantom was used to evaluate the accuracy of CT numbers for three extended FOV algorithms implemented on Siemens CT scanners: eFOV, HDFOV, and HDProFOV. Six different configurations of the phantoms were scanned and images were reconstructed for the three different extended FOV algorithms. The CIRS phantom inserts and overall phantom geometry were contoured in each image, and the Hounsfield units (HU) numbers were compared to an image of the phantom within the standard scan FOV (sFOV) without the modular sections. To evaluate the effect on dose calculations, six radiotherapy patients previously treated at our institution (three head and neck and three chest/pelvis) whose body circumferences extended past the 50 cm sFOV in the treatment planning CT were used. Images acquired on a Siemens Sensation Open scanner were reconstructed using sFOV, eFOV and HDFOV algorithms. A physician and dosimetrist identified the radiation target, critical organs, and external patient contour. A benchmark CT was created for each patient, consisting of an average of the 3 CT reconstructions with a density override applied to regions containing truncation artifacts. The benchmark CT was used to create an optimal radiation treatment plan. The plan was copied onto each CT reconstruction without density override and dose was recalculated.

Results

Tissue extending past the sFOV impacts the HU numbers for tissues inside and outside the sFOV when using extended FOV reconstructions. On average, the HU for all CIRS density inserts in the arms up (arms down) position varied by 43 HU (67 HU), 39 HU (73 HU), and 18 HU (51 HU) for the eFOV, HDFOV, and HDProFOV scans, respectively. In the patient dose calculations, patients with a smooth patient contour had the least deviation from the benchmark in the HDFOV (0.1–0.5%) compared to eFOV (0.4–1.8%) reconstructions. In cases with large amounts of tissue and irregular skin folds, the eFOV deviated the least from the benchmark (range 0.2–0.6% dose difference) compared to HDFOV (range 1.3–1.8% dose difference).

Conclusions

All reconstruction algorithms demonstrated good CT number accuracy in the center of the image. Larger artifacts are seen near and extending outside the scan FOV, however, dose calculations performed using typical beam arrangements using the extended FOV reconstructions were still mostly within 2.5% of best estimated reference values.