Effect of contrast‐enhanced CT scans on heterogeneity corrected dose computations in the lung

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate and, if possible, compensate for the effect of intravenous contrast‐enhanced CT scans on the treatment planning dose distributions for lung patients. The contrast and noncontrast CT scans of 3 patients were registered, and the effect of contrast on the Hounsfield units (HU) was assessed. The effect of contrast was then simulated in the CT scans of 18 patients receiving radiotherapy of the lung by modification of the CT numbers for relevant sections of noncontrast‐enhanced CT scans. All treatment planning was performed on the Pinnacle 3 planning system. The dose distributions computed from simulated contrast CT scans were compared to the original dose distributions by comparison of the monitor units (MUs) for each beam in the treatment plan required to deliver the prescribed dose to the isocenter as well as a comparison of the total MUs for each patient, a percentage change in required MUs being equivalent to a percentage change in the dose. A correction strategy to enable the use of contrast‐enhanced CT scans in treatment planning was developed, and the feasibility of applying the strategy was investigated by calculating dose distributions for both the original and simulated contrast CT scans. A mean increase in the overall patient MUs of 1.0 ± 0.8% was found, with a maximum increase of 3.3% when contrast was simulated on the original CT scans. The simulated contrast scans confirmed that the use of contrast‐enhanced CT scans for routine treatment planning would result in a systematic change in the dose delivered to the isocenter. The devised correction strategy had no clinically relevant effect on the dose distribution for the original CT scans. The application of the correction strategy to the simulated contrast CT scans led to a reduction of the mean difference in the overall MUs to 0.1 ± 0.2% compared to the original scan, demonstrating that the effect of contrast was eliminated with the correction strategy. This work has highlighted the problems associated with using contrast‐enhanced CT scans in heterogeneity corrected dose computation. Contrast visible in the CT scan is transient and should not be accounted for in the treatment plan. A correction strategy has been developed that minimizes the effect of intravenous contrast while having no clinical effect on noncontrast CT scans. The correction strategy allows the use of contrast without detriment to the treatment plan.PACS number: 87.53.Tf

Hounsfield units from unenhanced 18F-FDG-PET/CT are useful in evaluating supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes in children and adolescents with classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma

“…33,34 An additional difficulty concerning this method is that even a slight disturbance in the contrast administration protocol or in the anatomy of the patient may significantly change the image of the scanned structures, which can cause an unwarranted increase in the planned radiation dose when administering radiation therapy. 35,36 In this study we have shown that the XRA values are significantly higher in I-LN compared with NI-LN according to standard criteria. This difference is observed both in the baseline study and after 2 cycles of CTx.…”

The feasibility of direct treatment planning via contrast-enhanced computed tomography: an evaluation of dose differences based on the dimensional dose distribution comparison method

“…Virtual or arti icial intelligence-based technology methods to reduce dose disturbances in tumour regions (e.g., the lower oesophagus) and thus remove the enhancement effect are also needed (7) . Simple methods (14,15) that incorporate density correction could be applied for clinical corrected dose calculations. for example, the HU values of the heart and great vessels in the enhanced CT were replaced by average HU values obtained from the unenhanced CT, and in the Lung patients the CT to density conversion table used clinically was altered to reduce the effect of the increased density due to the contrast agent, in which tissues with a density between 1 g·cm -3 and 1.2 g·cm -3 were set equal to a density of 1 g·cm -3 .…”

Dosimetric effects of bladder and rectal contrast agents in prostate radiotherapy

“…Some studies have shown minimal change in doses mostly below 5% between contrast and non-contrast plans. [20][21][22][23][24] Unfortunately, comparisons are difficult as most studies refer to phantoms and other sites.…”