Purpose-To quantify the type, frequency and magnitude of artifacts in four-dimensional (4D) CT images acquired using a multislice cine method.Methods and Materials-Fifty consecutive patients, who underwent 4D-CT scanning and radiotherapy for thoracic or abdominal cancers, were included in this study. All the 4D-CT scans were performed on the GE multislice PET/CT scanner with the Varian RPM system in cine mode. The GE Advantage 4D software was used to create 4D-CT data sets. The artifacts were then visually and quantitatively analyzed. We further performed statistical analyses to evaluate the relationships between patient-or breathing pattern-related parameters and the occurrence as well as magnitude of artifacts.Results-It was found that 45 of 50 patients (90%) had at least one artifact (other than blurring) with a mean magnitude of 11.6 mm (range, 4.4 -56.0 mm) in the diaphragm or heart. We also observed at least one artifact in 6 of 20 lung or mediastinal tumors (30%). Statistical analysis revealed that there were significant differences between several breathing pattern-related parameters, including abdominal displacement (p < 0.01), for the subgroups of patients with and without artifacts. The magnitude of an artifact was found to be significantly but weakly correlated with the abdominal displacement difference between two adjacent couch positions (R = 0.34, p < 0.01).Conclusions-This study has identified that the frequency and magnitude of artifacts in 4D-CT is alarmingly high. Significant improvement is needed in 4D-CT imaging.

No abstract

An 18-patient study demonstrated significant correlations between 4D-CT ventilation and PFT measurements as well as SPECT ventilation, providing evidence toward the validation of 4D-CT ventilation imaging.

Purpose CT ventilation imaging (CTVI) is being used to achieve functional avoidance lung cancer radiation therapy in three clinical trials (NCT02528942, NCT02308709, NCT02843568). To address the need for common CTVI validation tools, we have built the Ventilation And Medical Pulmonary Image Registration Evaluation (VAMPIRE) Dataset, and present the results of the first VAMPIRE Challenge to compare relative ventilation distributions between different CTVI algorithms and other established ventilation imaging modalities. Methods The VAMPIRE Dataset includes 50 pairs of 4DCT scans and corresponding clinical or experimental ventilation scans, referred to as reference ventilation images (RefVIs). The dataset includes 25 humans imaged with Galligas 4DPET/CT, 21 humans imaged with DTPA‐SPECT, and 4 sheep imaged with Xenon‐CT. For the VAMPIRE Challenge, 16 subjects were allocated to a training group (with RefVI provided) and 34 subjects were allocated to a validation group (with RefVI blinded). Seven research groups downloaded the Challenge dataset and uploaded CTVIs based on deformable image registration (DIR) between the 4DCT inhale/exhale phases. Participants used DIR methods broadly classified into B‐splines, Free‐form, Diffeomorphisms, or Biomechanical modeling, with CT ventilation metrics based on the DIR evaluation of volume change, Hounsfield Unit change, or various hybrid approaches. All CTVIs were evaluated against the corresponding RefVI using the voxel‐wise Spearman coefficient rS, and Dice similarity coefficients evaluated for low function lung (DSClow) and high function lung (DSChigh). Results A total of 37 unique combinations of DIR method and CT ventilation metric were either submitted by participants directly or derived from participant‐submitted DIR motion fields using the in‐house software, VESPIR. The rS and DSC results reveal a high degree of inter‐algorithm and intersubject variability among the validation subjects, with algorithm rankings changing by up to ten positions depending on the choice of evaluation metric. The algorithm with the highest overall cross‐modality correlations used a biomechanical model‐based DIR with a hybrid ventilation metric, achieving a median (range) of 0.49 (0.27–0.73) for rS, 0.52 (0.36–0.67) for DSClow, and 0.45 (0.28–0.62) for DSChigh. All other algorithms exhibited at least one negative rS value, and/or one DSC value less than 0.5. Conclusions The VAMPIRE Challenge results demonstrate that the cross‐modality correlation between CTVIs and the RefVIs varies not only with the choice of CTVI algorithm but also with the choice of RefVI modality, imaging subject, and the evaluation metric used to compare relative ventilation distributions. This variability may arise from the fact that each of the different CTVI algorithms and RefVI modalities provides a distinct physiologic measurement. Ultimately this variability, coupled with the lack of a “gold standard,” highlights the ongoing importance of further validation studies before CTVI can be widely translated from academic ce...

4D-CT pulmonary ventilation images vary widely with DIR algorithms and metrics. Careful physiologic validation to determine the appropriate DIR algorithm and metric is needed prior to its applications.