Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:31:02.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commissioning a new CT simulator I: CT simulator hardware

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2007

D. Kearns  and
M. McJury
D. Kearns*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast, N. Ireland
M. McJury
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast, N. Ireland
*
Correspondence to: D. Kearns, Department of Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7AB, N. Ireland. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports on the commissioning tests performed on a new GE Lightspeed RT wide-bore computed tomography (CT) scanner with GE Advantage Sim software. This paper focuses on the laser marking system, CT hardware and the interfaces between each component of the system, and generalises the findings to most CT simulation systems currently available. A discussion on the commissioning of the virtual simulator software will follow in a separate paper. Three phantoms were used (two constructed in-house) to assist with a range of tests covering aspects such as the laser patient marking system, CT hardware, and connections between the CT scanner, virtual simulator system and the treatment planning system (TPS) and VARiS. Tests performed showed the CT simulation system to be working within acceptable tolerances suggested in the literature, and baseline data have been obtained against which future comparisons of system performance have been made. Where no tolerances were available, we have suggested suitable values. While considering tolerances on Hounsfield number variation that may lead to a dose error in excess of 2%, we found that in the case of low-kV CT scanning the range of Hounsfield numbers for dense bone was outside the acceptable limits for potential dose errors and so users were advised not to perform radiotherapy planning CT scans with kV below 100 kV.

Keywords

CommissioningCT simulation systemquality assurance
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 153 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sherouse, GW, Chaney, EL.The portable virtual simulator. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21:475–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McJury, M, Dyker, K, Nakielny, R, Conway, J, Robinson, MH.Optimizing localization accuracy in head and neck, and brain radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2006; 79:672–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, KP, Das, IJ. Commissioning, acceptance testing, and quality assurance of a CT simulator. In: Coia, LR, Schultheiss, TE, Hanks, GE (eds). A Practical Guide to CT Simulation (pp. 5–23). Madison, Wisconsin: Advanced Medical Publishing, 1995.Google Scholar
Mutic, S, Palta, JR, Butker, EK, et al. Quality assurance for computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 66. Med Phys 2003; 30 (10):2762–2792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aird, E, Conway, J.CT simulation for radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol 2002; 75:1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, J, Robinson, MH. CT virtual simulation. Br J Radiol. 1997; 70:S106–S118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, T, Brochu, D, Van Dyk, J. A quality assurance phantom for three-dimensional radiation treatment planning. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 1999; 44:955–966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, KP, Das, IJ, Sims, C.Evaluation of digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) used for clinical radiotherapy: A phantom study. Med Phys 1995; 22:1815–1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPEM Report 91. Recommended Standards for the Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-ray Imaging Systems. 2005.Google Scholar
Kilby, W, Sage, J, Rabett, V. Tolerance levels for quality assurance of electron density values generated from CT in radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 2002; 47:1485–1492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoos, T, Nilsson, M, Ahlgren, L.A method for conversion of Hounsfield number to electron density and prediction of macroscopic pair production cross-sections. Rad Oncol 1986; 5:337–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed