Acuros CTS enables a fast and accurate calculation of scatter images by deterministically solving the LBTE thus offering a computationally attractive alternative to Monte Carlo methods. Part II describes the application of Acuros CTS to scatter correction of CBCT scans on the TrueBeam system.

Acuros CTS is a promising new tool for fast and accurate scatter correction for CBCT imaging. By carefully modeling the imaging chain and optimizing several parameters, we achieved high correction accuracies with computation times compatible with the clinical workflow. The improvement in image quality enables better soft-tissue visualization and potentially enables applications such as adaptive radiotherapy.

Purpose To improve dose reporting of CT scans, patient‐specific organ doses are highly desired. However, estimating the dose distribution in a fast and accurate manner remains challenging, despite advances in Monte Carlo methods. In this work, we present an alternative method that deterministically solves the linear Boltzmann transport equation (LBTE), which governs the behavior of x‐ray photon transport through an object. Methods Our deterministic solver for CT dose (Acuros CTD) is based on the same approach used to estimate scatter in projection images of a CT scan (Acuros CTS). A deterministic method is used to compute photon fluence within the object, which is then converted to deposited energy by multiplying by known, material‐specific conversion factors. To benchmark Acuros CTD, we used the AAPM Task Group 195 test for CT dose, which models an axial, fan beam scan (10 mm thick beam) and calculates energy deposited in each organ of an anthropomorphic phantom. We also validated our own Monte Carlo implementation of Geant4 to use as a reference to compare Acuros against for other common geometries like an axial, cone beam scan (160 mm thick beam) and a helical scan (40 mm thick beam with table motion for a pitch of 1). Results For the fan beam scan, Acuros CTD accurately estimated organ dose, with a maximum error of 2.7% and RMSE of 1.4% when excluding organs with <0.1% of the total energy deposited. The cone beam and helical scans yielded similar levels of accuracy compared to Geant4. Increasing the number of source positions beyond 18 or decreasing the voxel size below 5 × 5 × 5 mm3 provided marginal improvement to the accuracy for the cone beam scan but came at the expense of increased run time. Across the different scan geometries, run time of Acuros CTD ranged from 8 to 23 s. Conclusions In this digital phantom study, a deterministic LBTE solver was capable of fast and accurate organ dose estimates.

Purpose Epidemiological evidence suggests an increased risk of cancer related to computed tomography (CT) scans, with children exposed to greater risk. The purpose of this work is to test the reliability of a linear Boltzmann transport equation (LBTE) solver for rapid and patient‐specific CT dose estimation. This includes building a flexible LBTE framework for modeling modern clinical CT scanners and to validate the resulting dose maps across a range of realistic scanner configurations and patient models. Methods In this study, computational tools were developed for modeling CT scanners, including a bowtie filter, overrange collimation, and tube current modulation. The LBTE solver requires discretization in the spatial, angular, and spectral dimensions, which may affect the accuracy of scanner modeling. To investigate these effects, this study evaluated the LBTE dose accuracy for different discretization parameters, scanner configurations, and patient models (male, female, adults, pediatric). The method used to validate the LBTE dose maps was the Monte Carlo code Geant4, which provided ground truth dose maps. LBTE simulations were implemented on a GeForce GTX 1080 graphic unit, while Geant4 was implemented on a distributed cluster of CPUs. Results The agreement between Geant4 and the LBTE solver quantifies the accuracy of the LBTE, which was similar across the different protocols and phantoms. The results suggest that 18 views per rotation provides sufficient accuracy, as no significant improvement in the accuracy was observed by increasing the number of projection views. Considering this discretization, the LBTE solver average simulation time was approximately 30 s. However, in the LBTE solver the phantom model was implemented with a lower voxel resolution with respect to Geant4, as it is limited by the memory of the GPU. Despite this discretization, the results showed a good agreement between the LBTE and Geant4, with root mean square error of the dose in organs of approximately 3.5% for most of the studied configurations. Conclusions The LBTE solver is proposed as an alternative to Monte Carlo for patient‐specific organ dose estimation. This study demonstrated accurate organ dose estimates for the rapid LBTE solver when considering realistic aspects of CT scanners and a range of phantom models. Future plans will combine the LBTE framework with deep learning autosegmentation algorithms to provide near real‐time patient‐specific organ dose estimation.

Purpose: To improve CBCT image quality for image‐guided radiotherapy by applying advanced reconstruction algorithms to overcome scatter, noise, and artifact limitations Methods: CBCT is used extensively for patient setup in radiotherapy. However, image quality generally falls short of diagnostic CT, limiting soft‐tissue based positioning and potential applications such as adaptive radiotherapy. The conventional TrueBeam CBCT reconstructor uses a basic scatter correction and FDK reconstruction, resulting in residual scatter artifacts, suboptimal image noise characteristics, and other artifacts like cone‐beam artifacts. We have developed an advanced scatter correction that uses a finite‐element solver (AcurosCTS) to model the behavior of photons as they pass (and scatter) through the object. Furthermore, iterative reconstruction is applied to the scatter‐corrected projections, enforcing data consistency with statistical weighting and applying an edge‐preserving image regularizer to reduce image noise. The combined algorithms have been implemented on a GPU. CBCT projections from clinically operating TrueBeam systems have been used to compare image quality between the conventional and improved reconstruction methods. Planning CT images of the same patients have also been compared. Results: The advanced scatter correction removes shading and inhomogeneity artifacts, reducing the scatter artifact from 99.5 HU to 13.7 HU in a typical pelvis case. Iterative reconstruction provides further benefit by reducing image noise and eliminating streak artifacts, thereby improving soft‐tissue visualization. In a clinical head and pelvis CBCT, the noise was reduced by 43% and 48%, respectively, with no change in spatial resolution (assessed visually). Additional benefits include reduction of cone‐beam artifacts and reduction of metal artifacts due to intrinsic downweighting of corrupted rays. Conclusion: The combination of an advanced scatter correction with iterative reconstruction substantially improves CBCT image quality. It is anticipated that clinically acceptable reconstruction times will result from a multi‐GPU implementation (the algorithms are under active development and not yet commercially available). All authors are employees of and (may) own stock of Varian Medical Systems.