ESTRO 2022 - Abstract Book

S1420

Abstract book

ESTRO 2022

Figure 1. The head section of the CIRS 062M phantom is shown in A) and an opposite view of the setup that shows the Sun Nuclear 1467 phantom is shown in B). Table 1. The reference values of the MD, RED and EAN, as well as the relative differences of the studied methods compared to the reference values. Deviations >±3% are written in red. Non-tissue equivalent materials are shaded in grey.

Results Both SECT methods underestimated the RED and MD for PMMA, graphite and PTFE (Table 1). The RED and MDs of the iodine solution were overestimated for the SECT methods, although less using the traditional calibration compared to DD. However, the traditional CT-calibration resulted in an underestimation of the RED of the three most compact bone surrogates in the SN phantom with 4%. DECT provided RED values within 1.4% for all materials in the phantom setup. Larger deviations were observed for the EAN. Conclusion Generally, the DECT method resulted in RED values closer to the references values compared to both SECT methods studied and especially for non-tissue-equivalent materials.

PO-1629 Ion CT image reconstruction with the TIGRE toolbox

S. Kaser 1 , T. Bergauer 1 , A. Biguri 2 , W. Birkfellner 3 , S. Hatamikia 4,3 , A. Hirtl 5 , C. Irmler 1 , B. Kirchmayer 5 , F. Ulrich-Pur 1

1 Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna, Austria; 2 University College London (UCL), Institute of Nuclear Medicine (INM), London, United Kingdom; 3 Medical University of Vienna, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, Austria; 4 Austrian Center for Medical Innovation and Technology, ACMIT, Wiener Neustadt, Austria; 5 Technische Universität Wien, Atominstitut, Vienna, Austria