In-room imaging is a prerequisite for adaptive proton therapy. The use of onboard cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging, which is routinely acquired for patient position verification, can enable daily dose reconstructions and plan adaptation decisions. Image quality deficiencies though, hamper dose calculation accuracy and make corrections of CBCTs a necessity. This study compared three methods to correct CBCTs and create synthetic CTs that are suitable for proton dose calculations. CBCTs, planning CTs and repeated CTs (rCT) from 33 H&N cancer patients were used to compare a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN), deformable image registration (DIR) and an analytical image-based correction method (AIC) for synthetic CT (sCT) generation. Image quality of sCTs was evaluated by comparison with a same-day rCT, using mean absolute error (MAE), mean error (ME), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), structural non-uniformity (SNU) and signal/contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR/CNR) as metrics. Dosimetric accuracy was investigated in an intracranial setting by performing gamma analysis and calculating range shifts. Neural network-based sCTs resulted in the lowest MAE and ME (37/2 HU) and the highest DSC (0.96). While DIR and AIC generated images with a MAE of 44/77 HU, a ME of −8/1 HU and a DSC of 0.94/0.90. Gamma and range shift analysis showed almost no dosimetric difference between DCNN and DIR based sCTs. The lower image quality of AIC based sCTs affected dosimetric accuracy and resulted in lower pass ratios and higher range shifts. Patient-specific differences highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of each method. For the set of patients, the DCNN created synthetic CTs with the highest image quality. Accurate proton dose calculations were achieved by both DCNN and DIR based sCTs. The AIC method resulted in lower image quality and dose calculation accuracy was reduced compared to the other methods.
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)- and magnetic resonance (MR)-images allow a daily observation of patient anatomy but are not directly suited for accurate proton dose calculations. This can be overcome by creating synthetic CTs (sCT) using deep convolutional neural networks. In this study, we compared sCTs based on CBCTs and MRs for head and neck (H&N) cancer patients in terms of image quality and proton dose calculation accuracy. A dataset of 27 H&N-patients, treated with proton therapy (PT), containing planning CTs (pCTs), repeat CTs, CBCTs and MRs were used to train two neural networks to convert either CBCTs or MRs into sCTs. Image quality was quantified by calculating mean absolute error (MAE), mean error (ME) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for bones. The dose evaluation consisted of a systematic non-clinical analysis and a clinical recalculation of actually used proton treatment plans. Gamma analysis was performed for non-clinical and clinical treatment plans. For clinical treatment plans also dose to targets and organs at risk (OARs) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) were compared. CBCT-based sCTs resulted in higher image quality with an average MAE of 40 ± 4 HU and a DSC of 0.95, while for MR-based sCTs a MAE of 65 ± 4 HU and a DSC of 0.89 was observed. Also in clinical proton dose calculations, sCTCBCT achieved higher average gamma pass ratios (2%/2 mm criteria) than sCTMR (96.1% vs. 93.3%). Dose-volume histograms for selected OARs and NTCP-values showed a very small difference between sCTCBCT and sCTMR and a high agreement with the reference pCT. CBCT- and MR-based sCTs have the potential to enable accurate proton dose calculations valuable for daily adaptive PT. Significant image quality differences were observed but did not affect proton dose calculation accuracy in a similar manner. Especially the recalculation of clinical treatment plans showed high agreement with the pCT for both sCTCBCT and sCTMR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.