Click here to


Are you sure ?

Yes, do it No, cancel

Building a Comprehensive 4DCT QA Program

M Camborde*, T Karan, K Luchka, BC Cancer - Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BCCA,


(Sunday, 7/12/2020)   [Eastern Time (GMT-4)]

Room: AAPM ePoster Library

To build a QA program for 4D CT acquisition in accordance with CPQR guidelines for a CT Simulator equipped with Varian’s RPM system.

An in-house platform was used to test geometric accuracy of RPM marker block in the lateral, cranio-caudal and anterior-posterior directions. To determine quality metrics for 4DCTs, a Quasar’s respiratory motion phantom with a cedar insert containing a ‘tumour’ and a Catphan phantom placed on an in-house moving platform were scanned either static or set to move (±1cm with 4s period and ±4mm with 3.5s period respectively). 4DCTs were acquired with a thorax clinical protocol in cine mode, with 5.6s cine duration and 0.3s cine time between images. Reconstruction were performed with Advantage software (GE) resulting in 10 phase-binned CTs, a MIP and AVE CT. CTDI measurements were performed with a Fluke TNT-12000DoseMate system with 4D scan settings as above.
4DCT scan analysis included manual and 4D auto-contouring tools within Eclipse (Varian, v.13) and in-house software for Catphan image quality analysis. All 4D results were compared among 3 GE CT systems equipped with RPM, as well as against static, 3D helical acquisitions.

Geometric accuracy of ROI motion was accurately represented for a hypodense ROI within the cedar insert. Spatial resolution, as indicated by lp/cm was preserved in the CT0 (max inhale) and CT50 (max exhale) compared to a static scan. The CT:HU curve was unchanged in 4D scans as compared to static scans. The uniformity of HU within a specific region did not adhere to CPQR guidelines (Mean HU ±10 HU bin variability, ±10% from helical). There was no significant inter-scanner variability. CTDI values were consistent with scanner-reported values and within expected limits.

An annual 4DCT program was successfully implemented, adhering to CPQR guidelines. Further interrogation of HU noise in 4D scans is warranted.


Quality Assurance



Contact Email