Back
 IJMPCERO  Vol.7 No.1 , February 2018
Effective Atomic Number Measurement with Energy-Resolved Computed Tomography Using Two-Dimensional “transXend” Detector
Abstract: Introduction: We have previously developed an effective atomic number (Zeff) measurement method using linear attenuation coefficients (LACs) obtained by energy-resolved computed tomography (CT) with one-dimensional (1D) detector. The energy-resolved CT was performed with a “transXend” detector, which measured X-rays as electric current and then gave X-ray energy distribution with unfolding analysis using pre-estimated response function (RF). The purpose of this study is to measure Zeff by the energy-resolved CT using a flat panel detector (FPD). Methods: To demonstrate a 2D transXend detector, we developed the stripe absorbers for the FPD. Eleven human tissue-equivalent material rods which were grouped into four material categories were measured by X-rays with 120 kVp tube voltage, 2.3 mA tube current, and 1.0 s exposure time. Zeff is measured by the ratio of LACs with two different pseudo-monochromatic X-ray energies. RFs of each rod material were estimated by numerical calculation. First, we employed the RF estimated for the same rod material (self-RF scenario). Second, we employed the RF estimated for the different rod materials in the same material category (cross-RF scenario). The purpose of the cross-RF scenario was to find representative rod materials in each material category. Results: Upon the self-RF scenario, measured Zeffs were systematically underestimated. Median relative error to theoretical Zeff was -6.92% (range: -7.89% - -4.60%). After normalizing measured Zeffs to the theoretical one for Breast, median relative error improved to -0.75% (range: -1.79% - +1.73%). Upon the cross-RF scenario, the representative rod materials were found in two material categories. Conclusion: Zeff measurements were performed by energy-resolved CT using 2D transXend detector with numerically-estimated RF data. Normalized Zeffs for all rod materials in the self-RF scenario were in good agreement with the theoretical ones.
Cite this paper: Iramina, H. , Nakamura, M. , Mizowaki, T. and Kanno, I. (2018) Effective Atomic Number Measurement with Energy-Resolved Computed Tomography Using Two-Dimensional “transXend” Detector. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 7, 61-73. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.71006.
References

[1]   Chetty, I.J., Curran, B., Cygler, J.E., De Marco, J.J., Ezzell, G., Faddegon, B.A., et al. (2007) Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: Issues Associated with Clinical Implementation of Monte Carlo-Based Photon and Electron External Beam Treatment Planning. Medical Physics, 34, 4818-4853.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2795842

[2]   Verhaegen, F. and Devic, S. (2005) Sensitivity Study for CT Image Use in Monte Carlo Treatment Planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 50, 937-946.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/016

[3]   Toriloshi, M., Tsunoo, T., Sasaki, M., Endo, M., Noda, Y., Ohno, Y., et al. (2003) Electron Density Measurement with Dual-Energy X-ray CT Using Synchrotron Radiation. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 48, 673-685.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/5/308

[4]   Taguchi, K., Frey, E., Wang, X., Iwanczyk, J. and Barber, W. (2010) An Analytical Model of the Effects of Pulse Pileup on the Energy Spectrum Recorded by Energy Resolved Photon Counting X-Ray Detectors. Medical Physics, 37, 3957-3969.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3429056

[5]   Yu, L., Leng, S. and McCollough, C.H. (2012) Dual-Energy CT-Based Monochromatic Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology, 199, S9-S15.
https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9121

[6]   Xu, C., Danielsson, M., Karlsson, S., Svensson, C. and Bornefalk, H. (2012) Preliminary Evaluation of a Silicon Strip Detector for Photon-Counting Spectral CT. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 677, 45-51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2012.02.034

[7]   Kanno, I., Imamura, R., Mikami, K., Uesaka, A., Hashimoto, M., Phtaka, M., et al. (2008) A Current Mode Detector for Unfolding X-Ray Energy Distribution. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 45, 1165-1170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2008.9711905

[8]   Yamashita, Y., Kimura, M., Hamaguchi, T., Kanno, I., Ohtaka, M., Hashimoto, M., et al. (2014) Measurement of Effective Atomic Numbers using Energy-Resolved Computed Tomography. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 51, 1256-1263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2014.919881

[9]   Kanno, I., Yamashita, Y., Kimura, M. and Inoue, F. (2015) Effective Atomic Number Measurement with Energy-Resolved Computed Tomography. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 787, 121-124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2014.11.072

[10]   Kanno, I., Yamauchi, K. and Hamaguchi, T. (2016) Two-Dimensional “transXend” Detector with Band Structure Absorbers for Third-Generation Energy-Resolved Computed Tomography with Improved Spatial Resolution. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 54, 22-29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2016.1202154

[11]   Kanno, I., Yamashita, Y., Kanai, E., Ogawa, T. and Shinsho, K. (2016) Two-Dimensional “TransXend” Detector for Third Generation Energy-Resolved Computed Tomography. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 53, 258-262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2015.1037810

[12]   Spiers, F.W. (1946) Effective Atomic Number and Energy in Tissues. The British Journal of Radiology, 19, 52-63.
https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-19-218-52

[13]   Hubbell, J.H. and Seltzer, S.M. (2010) Tables of X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients and Mass Energy-Absorption Coefficients from 1 keV to 20 MeV for Elements Z = 1 to 92 and 48 Additional Substances of Dosimetric Interest. The Physical Measurement Laboratory, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
https://www.nist.gov/pml/x-ray-mass-attenuation-coefficients

[14]   McElroy, W., Berg, S., Crockes, T. and Hawkins, G.A. (1967) Computer-Automated Iterative Method for Neutron Fux Spectra Determination by Foil Activation. AFWL-TR-67-41. Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Albuqueque, NM.

[15]   Imamura, R., Mikami, K., Minami, Y., Kanno, I., Ohtaka, M., Hashimoto, M., et al. (2010) Unfolding Method with X-Ray Path Length-Dependent Response Functions for Computed Tomography Using X-Ray Energy Information. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 47, 1075-1082.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2010.9711672

[16]   Shepp, L.A. and Vardi, Y. (1982) Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1, 113-122.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.1982.4307558

[17]   Bazalova, M., Carrier, J.F., Beaulieu, L. and Varhaegen, F. (2008) Dual-Energy CT-Based Material Extraction for Tissue Segmentation in Monte Carlo Dose Calculations. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 53, 2439-2456.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/9/015

[18]   Goodsitt, M.M., Christodoulou, E.G. and Larson, S.C. (2011) Accuracies of the Synthesized Monochromatic CT Numbers and Effective Atomic Numbers Obtained with a Rapid kVp Switching Dual Energy CT Scanner. Medical Physics, 38, 2222-2232.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3567509

[19]   Papanikolaou, N., Battista, J.J., Kappas, C., Klein, E., Mackie, T.R., Sharpe, M., et al. (2004) Tissue Inhomogeneity Corrections for Megavoltage Photon Beams. AAPM Report No. 65, 1-142.

[20]   Tsai, T.S. and Kanno, I. (2016) A Simulation Study on the Influence of Scattered X-Rays in Energy-Resolved Computed Tomography. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 54, 205-212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2016.1236709

[21]   Maruyama, Y., Hamaguchi, T., Tsai, T.S. and Kanno, I. (2017) Response Function Estimation with Fine Energy Bins for the Energy-Resolved Computed Tomography Using a TransXend Detector. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 55, 199-208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2017.1389311

 
 
Top