% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Hahn:141899,
author = {A. Hahn$^*$ and M. Knaup$^*$ and M. Brehm and S. Sauppe and
M. Kachelriess$^*$},
title = {{T}wo methods for reducing moving metal artifacts in
cone-beam {CT}.},
journal = {Medical physics},
volume = {45},
number = {8},
issn = {0094-2405},
address = {College Park, Md.},
publisher = {AAPM},
reportid = {DKFZ-2018-02156},
pages = {3671 - 3680},
year = {2018},
abstract = {In image-guided radiation therapy, fiducial markers or
clips are often used to determine the position of the tumor.
These markers lead to streak artifacts in cone-beam CT
(CBCT) scans. Standard inpainting-based metal artifact
reduction (MAR) methods fail to remove these artifacts in
cases of large motion. We propose two methods to effectively
reduce artifacts caused by moving metal inserts.The first
method (MMAR) utilizes a coarse metal segmentation in the
image domain and a refined segmentation in the rawdata
domain. After an initial reconstruction, metal is segmented
and forward projected giving a coarse metal mask in the
rawdata domain. Inside the coarse mask, metal is segmented
by utilizing a 2D Sobel filter. Metal is removed by linear
interpolation in the refined metal mask. The second method
(MoCoMAR) utilizes a motion compensation (MoCo) algorithm
[Med Phys. 2013;40:101913] that provides us with a
motion-free volume (3D) or with a time series of motion-free
volumes (4D). We then apply the normalized metal artifact
reduction (NMAR) [Med Phys. 2010;37:5482-5493] to these MoCo
volumes. Both methods were applied to three CBCT data sets
of patients with metal inserts in the thorax or abdomen
region and a 4D thorax simulation. The results were compared
to volumes corrected by a standard MAR1 [Radiology.
1987;164:576-577].MMAR and MoCoMAR were able to remove all
artifacts caused by moving metal inserts for the patients
and the simulation. Both new methods outperformed the
standard MAR1, which was only able to remove artifacts
caused by metal inserts with little or no motion.In this
work, two new methods to remove artifacts caused by moving
metal inserts are introduced. Both methods showed good
results for a simulation and three patients. While the first
method (MMAR) works without any prior knowledge, the second
method (MoCoMAR) requires a respiratory signal for the MoCo
step and is computationally more demanding and gives no
benefit over MMAR, unless MoCo images are desired.},
cin = {E020 / E025},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E025-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:29938797},
doi = {10.1002/mp.13060},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/141899},
}