Evaluation of motion artifacts reduction software that compensate for respiratory movements in the craniocaudal direction during abdominal cone-beam computed tomography.

We acquired cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of a locally made contrast-enhanced hepatic artery phantom under various conditions, both with the phantom still, and while moving it from the cranial to the caudal position. All the motion CBCT images were processed with and without motion artifacts reduction software (MARS). We calculated some quantitative similarity indexes between the still CBCT images (no-motion) and the motion CBCT images both processed with MARS (MARS ON) and without MARS (MARS OFF). In addition, the vessel signal values under the same movement conditions of the MARS ON/OFF and no-motion were evaluated. All quantitative similarity indexes between MARS ON and no-motion were significantly higher than between MARS OFF and no-motion in all movement conditions (p < 0.01). The vessel signal values were higher in MARS ON than in MARS OFF (p < 0.01) and closer to no-motion in all movement conditions.

[Efficient Commissioning of the Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System with the Golden Beam Data].

Commissioning of a linear accelerator (Linac) and treatment planning systems (RTPs) for clinical use is complex and time-consuming, typically 3-4 months in total. However, based on clinical needs and economics, hospitals desire early clinical starts for patients, and various studies have been conducted for shortening the preparation period. One of the methods to shorten the period is using golden beam data (GBD). The purpose of this study was to shorten the commissioning period without reducing accuracy and to simplify commissioning works while improving safety. We conducted commissioning of the RTPs before installing the Linac using GBD, and carried out verification immediately after the acceptance test. We used TrueBeam STx (Varian Medical Systems) and Eclipse (ver. 13.7, Varian Medical Systems) for RTPs and anisotropic analysis algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB (AXB) for calculation algorithms. The difference between GBD and the measured beam data was 0.0 ± 0.2% [percentage depth dose (PDDs) ] and -0.1 ± 0.2% (Profiles) with X-ray, and -1.2 ± 1.3% (PDDs) with electrons. The difference between the calculated dose and the measured dose was 0.1 ± 0.3% (AAA) and 0.0 ± 0.3% (AXB) under homogeneous conditions, and 0.7 ± 1.4% (AAA) and 0.6 ± 1.1% (AXB) under heterogeneous conditions. We took 43 days from the end of the acceptance test to the start of clinical use. We found that the preparation period for clinical use can be shortened without reducing the accuracy, by thinning out the number of measurement items using GBD.