Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 10;4(2):390–400. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2018.12.003

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Comparison of image quality for patient 7 with head and neck cancer. Top images (A) and (B): currently available algorithm (FDK_CBCT). Middle images (C) and (D) novel iterative algorithm (Iterative_CBCT). Bottom images (E) and (F) Planning computed tomography (acquired on different day than the cone beam computed tomography data sets). Note the improvement in image intensity homogeneity in the peripheral portion of the axial field of view near the left parotid gland (yellow arrow) and inferior portion of the sagittal field of view (orange and red arrows). Note the lack of streaking artifact in the Iterative_CBCT image near the bony anatomy (green arrow). Also note the improved overall image noise for the Iterative_CBCT data set.