Feasibility of CBCT-based dose calculation: Comparative analysis of HU adjustment techniques

Purpose(a) To investigate the accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT)–derived dose distributions relative to fanbeam–based simulation CT‐derived dose distributions; and (b) to study the feasibility of CBCT dosimetry for guiding the appropriateness of replanning.Methods and materialsImage data corresponding to 40 patients (10 head and neck [HN], 10 lung, 10 pancreas, 10 pelvis) who underwent radiation therapy were randomly selected. Each patient had both intensity‐modulated radiation therapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy plans; these 80 plans were subsequently recomputed on the CBCT images using a patient‐specific stepwise curve (Hounsfield units‐to‐density). Planning target volumes (PTVs; D98%, D95%, D2%), mean dose, and V95% were compared between simulation‐CT–derived treatment plans and CBCT‐based plans. Gamma analyses were performed using criterion of 3%/3 mm for three dose zones (>90%, 70%~90%, and 30%~70% of maximum dose). CBCT‐derived doses were then used to evaluate the appropriateness of replanning decisions in 12 additional HN patients whose plans were previously revised during radiation therapy because of anatomic changes; replanning in these cases was guided by the conventional observed source‐to‐skin‐distance change‐derived approach.ResultsFor all disease sites, the difference in PTV mean dose was 0.1% ± 1.1%, D2% was 0.7% ± 0.1%, D95% was 0.2% ± 1.1%, D98% was 0.2% ± 1.0%, and V95% was 0.3% ± 0.8%; For 3D dose comparison, 99.0% ± 1.9%, 97.6% ± 4.4%, and 95.3% ± 6.0% of points passed the 3%/3 mm criterion of gamma analysis in high‐, medium‐, and low‐dose zones, respectively. The CBCT images achieved comparable dose distributions. In the 12 previously replanned 12 HN patients, CBCT‐based dose predicted well changes in PTV D2% (Pearson linear correlation coefficient = 0.93; P < 0.001). If 3% of change is used as the replanning criteria, 7/12 patients could avoid replanning.Conclusions CBCT‐based dose calculations produced accuracy comparable to that of simulation CT. CBCT‐based dosimetry can guide the decision to replan during the course of treatment.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feasibility of CBCT‐based dose with a patient‐specific stepwise HU‐to‐density curve to determine time of replanning

Chen

Mutaf

et al. 2017

“…For CBCT scans, the Hounsfield Units (HU) of an image set are highly dependent on many factors, including the size and material of the phantom, the materials placed in the phantom, and the imaging protocol used 4, 5, 6, 7. Furthermore, scattering conditions often differ between phantoms and patients when using a cone‐beam geometry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐specific calibration of cone‐beam computed tomography data sets for radiotherapy dose calculations and treatment plan assessment

MacFarlane

Wong

Hoover

et al. 2018

PurposeIn this work, we propose a new method of calibrating cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data sets for radiotherapy dose calculation and plan assessment. The motivation for this patient‐specific calibration (PSC) method is to develop an efficient, robust, and accurate CBCT calibration process that is less susceptible to deformable image registration (DIR) errors.MethodsInstead of mapping the CT numbers voxel‐by‐voxel with traditional DIR calibration methods, the PSC methods generates correlation plots between deformably registered planning CT and CBCT voxel values, for each image slice. A linear calibration curve specific to each slice is then obtained by least‐squares fitting, and applied to the CBCT slice's voxel values. This allows each CBCT slice to be corrected using DIR without altering the patient geometry through regional DIR errors.A retrospective study was performed on 15 head‐and‐neck cancer patients, each having routine CBCTs and a middle‐of‐treatment re‐planning CT (reCT). The original treatment plan was re‐calculated on the patient's reCT image set (serving as the gold standard) as well as the image sets produced by voxel‐to‐voxel DIR, density‐overriding, and the new PSC calibration methods. Dose accuracy of each calibration method was compared to the reference reCT data set using common dose‐volume metrics and 3D gamma analysis. A phantom study was also performed to assess the accuracy of the DIR and PSC CBCT calibration methods compared with planning CT.ResultsCompared with the gold standard using reCT, the average dose metric differences were ≤ 1.1% for all three methods (PSC: −0.3%; DIR: −0.7%; density‐override: −1.1%). The average gamma pass rates with thresholds 3%, 3 mm were also similar among the three techniques (PSC: 95.0%; DIR: 96.1%; density‐override: 94.4%).ConclusionsAn automated patient‐specific calibration method was developed which yielded strong dosimetric agreement with the results obtained using a re‐planning CT for head‐and‐neck patients.

“…In addition to the anatomical information of the patient, the acquired CBCT images provide a quantitative estimate of the attenuation (i.e., the Hounsfield unit (HU)) that can be used for dose calculation 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . However, due to scatter and artifacts in CBCT images that are more than those in fan‐beam CT (FBCT), the accuracy of the CBCT‐based dose calculation should be carefully assessed 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric accuracy of the cone‐beam CT‐based treatment planning of the Vero system: a phantom study

Yohannes

Prasetio

Kallis

et al. 2016

We report an investigation on the accuracy of dose calculation based on the cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of the nonbowtie filter kV imaging system of the Vero linear accelerator. Different sets of materials and tube voltages were employed to generate the Hounsfield unit lookup tables (HLUTs) for both CBCT and fan‐beam CT (FBCT) systems. The HLUTs were then implemented for the dose calculation in a treatment planning system (TPS). Dosimetric evaluation was carried out on an in‐house‐developed cube phantom that consists of water‐equivalent slabs and inhomogeneity inserts. Two independent dosimeters positioned in the cube phantom were used in this study for point‐dose and two‐dimensional (2D) dose distribution measurements. The differences of HLUTs from various materials and tube voltages in both CT systems resulted in differences in dose calculation accuracy. We found that the higher the tube voltage used to obtain CT images, the better the point‐dose calculation and the gamma passing rate of the 2D dose distribution agree to the values determined in the TPS. Moreover, the insert materials that are not tissue‐equivalent led to higher dose‐calculation inaccuracy. There were negligible differences in dosimetric evaluation between the CBCT‐ and FBCT‐based treatment planning if the HLUTs were generated using the tissue‐equivalent materials. In this study, the CBCT images of the Vero system from a complex inhomogeneity phantom can be applied for the TPS dose calculation if the system is calibrated using tissue‐equivalent materials scanned at high tube voltage (i.e., 120 kV).PACS number(s): 87.55.de, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.qp