Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Sep 12;8(9):e778.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.778.

Cone Beam CT vs. Fan Beam CT: A Comparison of Image Quality and Dose Delivered Between Two Differing CT Imaging Modalities

Lawrence Lechuga  1 , Georg A Weidlich  2
Affiliations
Review

Cone Beam CT vs. Fan Beam CT: A Comparison of Image Quality and Dose Delivered Between Two Differing CT Imaging Modalities

Lawrence Lechuga et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

A comparison of image quality and dose delivered between two differing computed tomography (CT) imaging modalities-fan beam and cone beam-was performed. A literature review of quantitative analyses for various image quality aspects such as uniformity, signal-to-noise ratio, artifact presence, spatial resolution, modulation transfer function (MTF), and low contrast resolution was generated. With these aspects quantified, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) shows a superior spatial resolution to that of fan beam, while fan beam shows a greater ability to produce clear and anatomically correct images with better soft tissue differentiation. The results indicate that fan beam CT produces superior images to that of on-board imaging (OBI) cone beam CT systems, while providing a considerably less dose to the patient.

Keywords: cbct; dose; fan beam; fbct; image quality; uniformity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Catphan Modules Used in the Studies Discussed
(a) CTP-486 uniform water equivalent, (b) CTP-404 with 12 inhomogeneity inserts, (c) CTP-528 with up to 21 lp/cm [1]. Bottom left: CTP 591 tungsten carbide bead used to analyze spatial resolution. Bottom right: CTP 515 utilizes inserts of various contrasts to evaluate low contrast detectability [2].
Figure 2
Figure 2. Anthropomorphic Head Phantom
Reconstructed anthropomorphic head phantom images taken by (a) CT (b)-(f) OBI CBCT. From left to right on CBCT: SDH, SDHFS, HQH, HQHFS, and OBI13FS reconstructions [1].
Figure 3
Figure 3. FBCT vs CBCT
Cone beam CT (left) vs. fan beam CT (right) of head and neck IGRT in axial and sagittal orientation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Evaluation of image quality for different kV cone- beam CT acquisition and reconstruction methods in the head and neck region. Elstrøm U, Muren L, Peterson J, Grau C. Acta Oncologica. 2011;50:908–917. - PubMed
    1. A study on image quality provided by a kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography. [Mar;2016 ];Garayoa J, Castro P. http://www.jacmp.org/index.php/jacmp/article/view/3888 J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 14:239–257. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sir Godfrey Hounsfield. Richmond C. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7467.687 BMJ. 2004;329:687.
    1. A (short) history of image-guided radiotherapy. Verellen D, De Ridder M, Storme G. Radiother Oncol. 2008;86:4–13. - PubMed
    1. Assessment of spatial resolution in CT. Grimmer R, Krause J, Karolczak M, Lapp R, Kachelriess M. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4774508&isnumber... IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2008:5562–5566.

LinkOut - more resources