Cone‐beam CT imaging with laterally enlarged field of view based on independently movable source and detector

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundCBCT imaging with field of views (FOVs) exceeding the size of scans acquired in the conventional imaging geometry, i.e. with opposing source and detector, is of high clinical importance for many medical fields. A novel approach for enlarged FOV scanning with one full‐scan (EnFOV360) or two short‐scans (EnFOV180) using an O‐arm system arises from non‐isocentric imaging based on independent source and detector rotations.PurposeThe presentation, description, and experimental validation of this novel approach and the novel scanning techniques EnFOV360 and EnFOV180 for an O‐arm system forms the scope of this work.MethodsWe describe the EnFOV360, EnFOV180, and non‐isocentric imaging techniques for the acquisition of laterally extended FOVs. For their experimental validation, scans of dedicated quality assurance as well as anthropomorphic phantoms were acquired, with the phantoms being placed both within the tomographic plane and at the longitudinal FOV border with and without lateral shifts from the gantry center. Based on this, geometric accuracy, contrast‐noise‐ratio (CNR) of different materials, spatial resolution, noise characteristics, as well as CT number profiles were quantitatively assessed. Results were compared to scans performed with the conventional imaging geometry.ResultsWith EnFOV360 and EnFOV180, we increased the in‐plane size of acquired FOVs from 250 × 250 mm2 obtained for the conventional imaging geometry to up to 400 × 400 mm2 for the performed measurements. Geometric accuracy was very high for all scanning techniques with mean values ≤0.21 ± 0.11 mm. CNR and spatial resolution were comparable between isocentric and non‐isocentric full‐scans as well as EnFOV360, whereas substantial image quality deteriorations in this respect were observed for EnFOV180. Image noise in the isocenter was lowest for conventional full‐scans with 13.4 ± 0.2 HU. For laterally shifted phantom positions, noise increased for conventional scans and EnFOV360, whereas noise reductions were observed for EnFOV180. Considering the anthropomorphic phantom scans, both EnFOV360 and EnFOV180 were comparable to conventional full‐scans.ConclusionBoth enlarged FOV techniques have high potential for imaging laterally extended FOVs. EnFOV360 revealed an image quality comparable to conventional full‐scans in general. EnFOV180 showed an inferior performance particularly regarding CNR and spatial resolution.