[Rtk-users] Obtaining HU number from RTK float data after CBCT reconstruction

[Simon Rit]

Yes, what you've suggested before is fine but the 1/65536 and 65536
multiplications could be avoided. If you really want to do something in
physical units, you need to convert hu to linear attenuation which requires
the knowledge of the linear attenuation of water.
Simon

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Yang K Park <theday79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Rune,
>
>
>
> That is a great tip. Thank you so much. (We’ve recently installed XVI5.0
> so I’m better off trying to use that new feature.)
>
>
>
> My remaining question is, then, when you guys do a  forward projection for
> clinical CT images (singed short) using rtk, which pre-processing do you do?
>
>
>
> I think some “short to float” conversion is needed and that conversion
> formula should be also working with FDK to restore the CT image with same
> HU values.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Yang
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rune Slot Thing [mailto:Rune.Slot.Thing at rsyd.dk]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:29 AM
> *To:* 'Yang K Park'; rtk-users at openrtk.org
> *Subject:* SV: [Rtk-users] Obtaining HU number from RTK float data after
> CBCT reconstruction
>
>
>
> Hi Yang,
>
>
>
> The short answer to your question is that the projection images you
> acquire on an Elekta CBCT unit are not normalized properly. If you perform
> the same scan with two different exposures (e.g. double the mAs value), you
> will get different projection images and hence different grey values in the
> reconstructed images, regardless of whether you use the XVI reconstruction
> or RTK. Since the Elekta system does not record your unattenuated signal
> anywhere, it is not possible to do the proper I/I_0 normalization that you
> need in order to get to the attenuation coefficients required for the HU
> definition, and hence you cannot get to proper HU values from the
> projection images alone. Due to detector drift and all the different
> sources of artefacts in CBCT imaging, it is a non-trivial problem to get
> this normalization right.
>
>
>
> With the latest release of the Elekta XVI 5.0 software, there is some
> calibration added on the software side to allow a pseudo-HU calibration of
> the CBCT grey values. Since we do not have the software in our clinic yet,
> I have not investigated how exactly this is incorporated. My guess is that
> it is more of an empirical mapping which works well on objects of similar
> size, shape and composition as the calibration phantom used, than it is a
> proper calibration of all projection images to the open field images that
> would give the correct normalization.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps – otherwise feel free to ask again.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Rune Slot Thing
>
> PhD Student
>
> Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark
>
> Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital
>
> rune.slot.thing at rsyd.dk
>
>
>
> *Fra:* Rtk-users [mailto:rtk-users-bounces at public.kitware.com
> <rtk-users-bounces at public.kitware.com>] *På vegne af *Yang K Park
> *Sendt:* 3. marts 2015 02:05
> *Til:* rtk-users at openrtk.org
> *Emne:* [Rtk-users] Obtaining HU number from RTK float data after CBCT
> reconstruction
>
>
>
> Hi RTK users,
>
>
>
> This could be a class question but  I couldn’t have any chance to ask it
> so far.
>
>
>
> After the RTK reconstruction, I can get float values for each voxel which
> might be linear attenuation coefficients (µ [mm-1]) coming from logarithm
> calculation.
>
>
>
> In my experience, this value is quite different from that of helical CT.
>
> For example, µ for water ~= 0.015 [mm-1] in RTK (measured in regions
> without scatter artifacts) *vs* ~0.027 [mm-1] in CT. And that µ value is
> also affected by mAs value as well.
>
>
>
> My goal is to convert that float value to HU number with a reasonable
> explanation.
>
>
>
> In our Elekta system, they seem to convert those float values to their own
> CBCT number ranging from “0-65535” by using a following formula:
>
>
>
> Elekta CBCT number  = µ * 65536 – 1024  (µ seems to be the float value
> identical to that comes from RTK reconstruction)
>
>
>
> , which has no relationship to HU definition.
>
>
>
> And I’m wondering why they are using the above formula instead of using
> classic HU definition ( HU =  (µ - µ_w / µ_w)*1000).
>
>
>
> Of course I’m aware of that CBCT number should be quite different from CT
> number due to many artifact sources.
>
> I’m just trying to get some physically reasonable conversion method
> between CBCT number to HU number.
>
>
>
> Thank you guys for your help in advance!
>
>
>
> Yang
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtk-users mailing list
> Rtk-users at public.kitware.com
> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20150303/fccd5182/attachment-0009.html>