journal article·2024-02-17Open access

Sparse-View Cone-Beam CT Reconstruction by Bar-by-Bar Neural FDK Algorithm

Siqi Wang, Tatsuya Yatagawa, Yutaka Ohtake, Hiromasa Suzuki

Abstract

The Feldkamp, Davis and Kress algorithm is a computationally efficient reconstruction method for three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography. However, it suffers from severe artefacts when the number of projections is insufficient. Although recent deep learning–based methods have succeeded in reconstructing such sparse-view projections, it is still challenging to reconstruct a large 3D volume efficiently because of heavy memory consumption and difficulty in obtaining sufficient training data. Therefore, we propose a deep learning method to overcome these drawbacks. Our method consecutively reconstructs short bars in 3D CT volume using the intensities of pixels on the moving trajectory projected on the detector of these bars. Then, we feed such pixel intensities into a neural network and train it to simulate the filtering and back-projection processes of the FDK algorithm. Since the reconstruction volume is separated into bars, the neural network can be used with only a small amount of memory. Furthermore, the network can be trained sufficiently with only a few training samples because plenty of bar data can be extracted even from a single CT image. We experimentally demonstrate that our approach works efficiently for both simulated and actual sparse-view CBCT data using training data extracted from only a single CT image.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications · Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging · Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.17096/jiufd.0028910.17096/jiufd.00289 ↗
2. 10.1259/dmfr/2115248010.1259/dmfr/21152480 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.cirp.2014.05.01110.1016/j.cirp.2014.05.011 ↗
4. Hseih J. Computed tomography - Principles, Design, Artifacts and Recent Advances. SPIE and John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 2009.
5. 10.1080/10589759.2020.177868410.1080/10589759.2020.1778684 ↗
6. Jeon S, Kim S, Lee CO. Shape prior metal artefact reduction algorithm for industrial 3D cone beam CT. Case Stud NondestrTest Eval. 2020;36(2):176–194.
7. 10.1364/JOSAA.1.00061210.1364/JOSAA.1.000612 ↗
8. 10.1259/dmfr/3064203910.1259/dmfr/30642039 ↗
9. Kim D, Park SJ, Jo B, et al. Investigation of sparse-angle view in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstruction algorithm using a sinogram interpolation method. World Congress on Med Phys Biomed Eng. 2015;06:51.
10. 10.4236/am.2014.5304310.4236/am.2014.53043 ↗
11. Zhang H, Sonke JJ. Directional sinogram interpolation for sparse angular acquisition in cone-beam computed tomography. J Xray Sci Technol. 2013;21(4):481–496.
12. 10.1109/TIP.2003.81529510.1109/TIP.2003.815295 ↗
13. 10.1088/0031-9155/55/13/02210.1088/0031-9155/55/13/022 ↗
14. Zang G, Aly M, Idoughi R, et al. Super-resolution and sparse view CT reconstruction. Computer Vision – ECCV. 2018;2018(09):145–161.
15. Maass N, Dennerlein F, Noo F, et al. Comparing ct reconstruction algorithms regarding cone–beam artifact performance. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record; Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. 2010 10;.
16. 10.1118/1.367986510.1118/1.3679865 ↗
17. 10.1118/1.278949910.1118/1.2789499 ↗
18. 10.1109/TIP.2010.205881110.1109/TIP.2010.2058811 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.01.00310.1016/j.ejmp.2012.01.003 ↗
20. 10.1118/1.303611210.1118/1.3036112 ↗
21. 10.1038/nature2598810.1038/nature25988 ↗
22. 10.1109/GlobalSIP.2018.864666910.1109/GlobalSIP.2018.8646669 ↗
23. 10.1109/TCI.2020.303938510.1109/TCI.2020.3039385 ↗
24. Mustafa W, Kehl C, Olsen U, et al. Sparse-view spectral CT reconstruction using deep learning. arXiv Preprint: arXiv: 201114842. 2020;11.
25. Ghani MU, Karl W. CNN based sinogram denoising for low-dose CT. Imaging and Appl Opt. 2018;01:MM2D.5.
26. 10.1109/TMI.2018.282333810.1109/TMI.2018.2823338 ↗
27. 10.1038/s41551-019-0466-410.1038/s41551-019-0466-4 ↗
28. 10.1088/1361-6560/ab8fc110.1088/1361-6560/ab8fc1 ↗
29. He J, Wang Y, Ma J. Radon inversion via deep learning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020;01:1.
30. 10.1109/TIP.2013.228314210.1109/TIP.2013.2283142 ↗
31. 10.3390/jimaging612013510.3390/jimaging6120135 ↗
32. Buratti A, Achour S, Isenberg C, et al. Frequency-based method to optimize the number of projections for industrial computed tomography. In: Proccdings of the Conference on Industrial Computed Tomography (iCT) Wels, Austria; 2016. 02
33. Kingma DP, Ba J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. arXiv Preprint arXiv: 14126980. 2014.
34. Dorgham O, Fisher M, Laycock S. Performance of 2D-3D image registration using (lossy) compressed X-ray CT. Annals of the BMVA. 2009;01(3).
35. Chollet F et al. Keras [https://github.com/fchollet/keras]. 2015.
36. Abadi M Agarwal A Barham P et al. TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems; 2015. Available from: https://www.tensorflow.org/.
37. 10.1088/0031-9155/53/17/02110.1088/0031-9155/53/17/021 ↗
38. 10.1145/37402.3742210.1145/37402.37422 ↗