Modified fast adaptive scatter kernel superposition (mfASKS) correction and its dosimetric impact on CBCT-based proton therapy dose calculation.
adaptive
cone beam CT
proton therapy
scatter correction
scatter kernel
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
07
05
2019
revised:
11
10
2019
accepted:
12
10
2019
pubmed:
30
10
2019
medline:
2
6
2020
entrez:
30
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is able to provide patient anatomical information, its image quality is severely degraded due to scatter contamination, which degrades the accuracy of CBCT-based dose distribution estimation in proton therapy. In this work, we combined two existing scatter kernel correction methods: the point-spread function (PSF)-based scatter kernel derivation method and the fast adaptive scatter kernel superposition (fASKS) model, and evaluated the impact of the modified fASKS (mfASKS) correction on the accuracy of proton dose distribution estimation. To evaluate feasibility of the mfASKS approach using accurate scatter distributions, both Monte Carlo simulations and experiments were performed for an on-board CBCT machine integrated with a proton therapy machine. We developed a strategy to modify central intensity, constant intensity, and amplitude of the scatter kernels derived from PSFs for the fASKS model. A parameter required for the fASKS model was derived by optimizing uniformity in the mfASKS-corrected reconstructed images. Subsequently, the mfASKS model was used to remove scatter in CBCT imaging. We quantitatively compared the Hounsfield Unit (HU) and proton stopping power ratio (SPR) images for five different phantoms. To assess improvement of dose calculation accuracy, a series of proton treatment plans were produced using the CBCT images with and without the mfASKS correction. The accuracies of both HU and SPR intensity quantifications are improved as a result of the mfASKS correction. Mean absolute water-equivalent path length difference to the true value decreases from 10.3 to 0.934 mm for the Gammex phantom (simulation). At the same time, mfASKS is able to offer more accurate dose distributions, especially at the distal fall-off region where noticeable dose overestimation is observed in the uncorrected scenario. Mean absolute relative error of proton range in the pelvic phantom improves from 5.03% to 2.57% (experiment). mfASKS enables more accurate CBCT-based proton dose calculation. This technique has significant implications in image-guided radiotherapy and dose verifications in adaptive proton therapy.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
190-200Subventions
Organisme : Hokkaido University
Informations de copyright
© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Veiga C, Janssens G, Teng C-L, et al. First clinical investigation of cone beam computed tomography and deformable registration for adaptive proton therapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2016;95:549-559.
Placidi L, Bolsi A, Lomax AJ, et al. Effect of anatomic changes on pencil beam scanned proton dose distributions for cranial and extracranial tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2017;97:616-623.
Landry G, Nijhuis R, Dedes G, et al. Investigating CT to CBCT image registration for head and neck proton therapy as a tool for daily dose recalculation. Med Phys. 2015;42:1354-1366.
Kurz C, Nijhuis R, Reiner M, et al. Feasibility of automated proton therapy plan adaptation for head and neck tumors using cone beam CT images. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11:64.
Park Y-K, Sharp GC, Phillips J, Winey BA. Proton dose calculation on scatter-corrected CBCT image: feasibility study for adaptive proton therapy. Med Phys. 2015;42:4449-4459.
Landry G, Dedes G, Zöllner C, et al. Phantom based evaluation of CT to CBCT image registration for proton therapy dose recalculation. Phys Med Biol. 2014;60:595-613.
Kurz C, Dedes G, Resch A, et al. Comparing cone-beam CT intensity correction methods for dose recalculation in adaptive intensity-modulated photon and proton therapy for head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol. 2015;54:1651-1657.
Arai K, Kadoya N, Kato T, et al. Feasibility of CBCT-based proton dose calculation using a histogram-matching algorithm in proton beam therapy. Phys Med. 2017;33:68-76.
Sykes JR, Brettle DS, Magee DR, Thwaites DI. Investigation of uncertainties in image registration of cone beam CT to CT on an image-guided radiotherapy system. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:7263-7283.
Barber J, Sykes JR, Holloway L, Thwaites DI. Comparison of automatic image registration uncertainty for three IGRT systems using a male pelvis phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:283-292.
Giacometti V, King RB, Agnew CE, et al. An evaluation of techniques for dose calculation on cone beam computed tomography. Br J Radiol. 2018;92:20180383.
Rührnschopf And E-P, Klingenbeck K. A general framework and review of scatter correction methods in cone beam CT. Part 2: scatter estimation approaches. Med Phys. 2011;38:5186-5199.
Sun M, Star-Lack JM. Improved scatter correction using adaptive scatter kernel superposition. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:6695-6720.
Li H, Mohan R, Zhu XR. Scatter kernel estimation with an edge-spread function method for cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:6729-6748.
Low DA, Zhu X-R, Harms WB, Purdy JA. Measurement of a photon penumbra-generating kernel for a convolution-adapted ratio-TAR algorithm for 3D treatment planning. Med Phys. 1995;22:1395-1403.
Lazos D, Williamson JF. Impact of flat panel-imager veiling glare on scatter-estimation accuracy and image quality of a commercial on-board cone-beam CT imaging system. Med Phys. 2012;39:5639-5651.
Zhu L, Xie Y, Wang J, Xing L. Scatter correction for cone-beam CT in radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2009;36:2258-2268.
Poludniowski G, Evans PM, Hansen VN, Webb S. An efficient Monte Carlo-based algorithm for scatter correction in keV cone-beam CT. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:3847-3864.
Lazos D, Williamson JF. Monte Carlo evaluation of scatter mitigation strategies in cone-beam CT. Med Phys. 2010;37:5456-5470.
Poludniowski G, Evans PM, Kavanagh A, Webb S. Removal and effects of scatter-glare in cone-beam CT with an amorphous-silicon flat-panel detector. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:1837-1851.
Floyd CE, Baydush AH, Lo JY, Bowsher JE, Ravin CE. Scatter compensation for digital chest radiography using maximum likelihood expectation maximization. Invest Radiol. 1993;28:427-433. https://journals.lww.com/investigativeradiology/Fulltext/1993/05000/Scatter_Compensation_for_Digital_Chest_Radiography.9.aspx
Jan S, Benoit D, Becheva E, et al. GATE V6: a major enhancement of the GATE simulation platform enabling modelling of CT and radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:881-901.
Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, et al. Recent developments in Geant 4. Nucl Instruments Methods Phys Res Sect A Accel Spectrometers, Detect Assoc Equip. 2016;835:186-225.
Poludniowski G, Landry G, DeBlois F, Evans PM, Verhaegen F. SpekCalc: a program to calculate photon spectra from tungsten anode x-ray tubes. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:N433-N438.
Hudobivnik N, Schwarz F, Johnson T, et al. Comparison of proton therapy treatment planning for head tumors with a pencil beam algorithm on dual and single energy CT images. Med Phys. 2016;43:495-504.
White DR, Woodard HQ, Hammond SM. Average soft-tissue and bone models for use in radiation dosimetry. Br J Radiol. 1987;60:907-913.
Craft D, Bangert M, Long T, Papp D, Unkelbach J. Shared data for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization research: the CORT dataset. Gigascience. 2014;3:37.
Yang J, Veeraraghavan H, Armato SG, et al. Autosegmentation for thoracic radiation treatment planning: a grand challenge at AAPM 2017. Med Phys. 2018;45:4568-4581.
Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K, et al. The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26:1045-1057.
Kim C, Park M, Sung Y, Lee J, Choi J, Cho S. Data consistency-driven scatter kernel optimization for x-ray cone-beam CT. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:5971-5994.
Baer M, Kachelrie M. Hybrid scatter correction for CT imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:6849-6867.
Biguri A, Dosanjh M, Hancock S, Soleimani M. TIGRE: a MATLAB-GPU toolbox for CBCT image reconstruction. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2016;2:055010.
Hammersberg P, Mångård M. Correction for beam hardening artefacts in computerised tomography. J Xray Sci Technol. 1998;8:75-93.
Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A. The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:111-124.
Richter A, Hu Q, Steglich D, et al. Investigation of the usability of conebeam CT data sets for dose calculation. Radiat Oncol. 2008;3:42.
Park PC, Cheung J, Zhu XR, Sahoo N, Court L, Dong L. Fast range-corrected proton dose approximation method using prior dose distribution. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:3555-3569.
da Silva J, Ansorge R, Jena R. Sub-second pencil beam dose calculation on GPU for adaptive proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:4777-4795.
Nomura Y, Xu Q, Shirato H, Shimizu S, Xing L. Projection-domain scatter correction for cone beam computed tomography using a residual convolutional neural network. Med Phys. 2019;46:3142-3155.
Hansen DC, Landry G, Kamp F, et al. ScatterNet: a convolutional neural network for cone-beam CT intensity correction. Med Phys. 2018;45:4916-4926.
Maier J, Sawall S, Knaup M, Kachelrieß M. Deep scatter estimation (DSE): accurate real-time scatter estimation for x-ray CT using a deep convolutional neural network. J Nondestruct Eval. 2018;37:57.