Evaluation of Radiation Treatment Planning By Computed Tomography Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithm

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department of Radiological sciences, College of Health Sciences, Eulji University, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-Do, 13135, Republic of Korea

2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-Do, 13620, Republic of Korea

3 Department of Medical IT Engineering, College of Medical Science, Soonchunhyang University, Asan, Chungnam, 31538, Republic of Korea


Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of Computed Tomography (CT) images acquired through repeated subtraction reconstruction algorithms to reduce metal artifacts in CT Treatment Planning System (TPS).
Material and Methods: Origin images of Gammex phantom and Rando phantom and non-orthopedic metal artifact reduction (O-MAR) images were obtained after high density implantation. O-MAR applied images were also obtained. For evaluation of images, regions of interest (ROI) were set at five tissue rods and three points directly affected by artifacts in Gammex phantom. CT number and noise were compared and analyzed. Based on the investigated results using the Gammex phantom, three virtual cylinder target volumes were set on the Rando phantom to dose change of the radiation treatment planning according to the O-MAR. The average dose was then compared and analyzed.
Results: CT number difference according to the application of O-MAR showed significant difference among lung and bone rod and 3 ROI directly affected. Noise difference according to O-MAR application was significantly different in rod except for bone rod. In the treatment plan using Rando phantom, non-O-MAR and O-MAR images showed -4.3 ~ 1.9% and -0.4 ~ 2.3% dose differences, respectively.
Conclusion: Applying an O-MAR can reduce image distortion due to high-density implantation, improve image quality, and correct CT numbers.


Main Subjects

  1. Li H, Noel C, Chen H, Harold Li H, Low D, Moore K, et al. Clinical evaluation of a commercial orthopedic metal artifact reduction tool for CT simulations in radiation therapy. Medical physics. 2012;39(12):7507-17.
  2. Webster GJ, Rowbottom CG, Mackay RI. Evaluation of the impact of dental artefacts on intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning for the head and neck. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2009;93(3):553-8.
  3. Coolens C, Childs P. Calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning of patients with metallic hip prostheses: the use of the extended CT-scale. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2003;48(11):1591.
  4. Lee C-H, Yun I-H, Hong D-G, Back G-M, Kwon G-T. Evaluation of using Gantry Tilt Scan to Head & Neck of Patients during Radiation Therapy for Reduction of Metal Artifact. The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy. 2010;22(2):85-95.
  5. Zhao S, Robeltson D, Wang G, Whiting B, Bae KT. X-ray CT metal artifact reduction using wavelets: an application for imaging total hip prostheses. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2000;19(12):1238-47.
  6. Wellenberg R, Hakvoort E, Slump C, Boomsma M, Maas M, Streekstra G. Metal artifact reduction techniques in musculoskeletal CT-imaging. European journal of radiology. 2018;107:60-9.
  7. Bal M, Spies L. Metal artifact reduction in CT using tissue‐class modeling and adaptive prefiltering. Medical physics. 2006;33(8):2852-9.
  8. Matsufuji N, Tomura H, Futami Y, Yamashita H, Higashi A, Minohara S, et al. Relationship between CT number and electron density, scatter angle and nuclear reaction for hadron-therapy treatment planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1998;43(11):3261.
  9. Kovacs DG, Rechner LA, Appelt AL, Berthelsen AK, Costa JC, Friborg J, et al. Metal artefact reduction for accurate tumour delineation in radiotherapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2018;126(3):479-86.
  10. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2012. URL http://www R-project org. 2018.
  11. Huang JY, Kerns JR, Nute JL, Liu X, Balter PA, Stingo FC, et al. An evaluation of three commercially available metal artifact reduction methods for CT imaging. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2015;60(3):1047.
  12. Axente M, Paidi A, Von Eyben R, Zeng C, Bani‐Hashemi A, Krauss A, et al. Clinical evaluation of the iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm for CT simulation in radiotherapy. Medical physics. 2015;42(3):1170-83.
  13. Andersson KM, Nowik P, Persliden J, Thunberg P, Norrman E. Metal artefact reduction in CT imaging of hip prostheses—an evaluation of commercial techniques provided by four vendors. The British journal of radiology. 2015;88(1052):20140473.
  14. M Safdari, A Karimian, M Reza Yazdchi, A new method for metal artifact reduction in CT scan images. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2013;10(2):139-146
  15. Shim E, Kang Y, Ahn JM, Lee E, Lee JW, Oh JH, et al. Metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (O-MAR): usefulness in CT evaluation of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017;209(4):860-6.
  16. Healthcare P. Metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (O-MAR). White Paper, Philips CT Clinical Science, Andover, Massachusetts. 2012.
  17. Joemai RM, de Bruin PW, Veldkamp WJ, Geleijns J. Metal artifact reduction for CT: Development, implementation, and clinical comparison of a generic and a scanner‐specific technique. Medical physics. 2012;39(2):1125-32.
  18. Lewis M, Toms AP, Reid K, Bugg W. CT metal artifact reduction of total knee prostheses using angled gantry multiplanar reformation. The Knee. 2010;17(4):279-82.
  19. Rim J, Choi J-A, Lee SA, Khil EK. Comparison of metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants versus standard filtered back projection: value of postoperative CT after hip replacement. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology. 2018;78(1):22-9.
  20. Gillet R, Teixeira P, Bonarelli C, Coudane H, Sirveaux F, Louis M, et al. Comparison of radiographs, tomosynthesis and CT with metal artifact reduction for the detection of hip prosthetic loosening. European radiology. 2019;29(3):1258-66.
  21. Boos J, Sawicki LM, Lanzman RS, Thomas C, Aissa J, Schleich C, et al. Metal artifact reduction (MAR) based on two-compartment physical modeling: evaluation in patients with hip implants. Acta Radiologica. 2017;58(1):70-6.
  22. Wuest W, May M, Brand M, Bayerl N, Krauss A, Uder M, et al. Improved image quality in head and neck CT using a 3D iterative approach to reduce metal artifact. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2015;36(10):1988-93.
  23. Golden C, Mazin SR, Boas FE, Tye G, Ghanouni P, Gold G, et al. A comparison of four algorithms for metal artifact reduction in CT imaging. Physics of Medical Imaging. 2011;12(30)
  24. PAUDEL, Moti Raj, et al. Clinical evaluation of normalized metal artifact reduction in kVCT using MVCT prior images (MVCT-NMAR) for radiation therapy treatment planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2014;89(3):682-689


Volume 18, Issue 6
November and December 2021
Pages 403-408
  • Receive Date: 29 September 2020
  • Revise Date: 06 December 2020
  • Accept Date: 09 December 2020