Dosimetric Validation of a GAN-Based Pseudo-CT Generation for MRI-Only Stereotactic Brain Radiotherapy.
GAN
MRI
brain metastases
stereotactic radiotherapy
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Mar 2021
03 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
30
01
2021
revised:
23
02
2021
accepted:
24
02
2021
entrez:
3
4
2021
pubmed:
4
4
2021
medline:
4
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) has become widely accepted as a treatment of choice for patients with a small number of brain metastases that are of an acceptable size, allowing for better target dose conformity, resulting in high local control rates and better sparing of organs at risk. An MRI-only workflow could reduce the risk of misalignment between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain studies and computed tomography (CT) scanning for SRT planning, while shortening delays in planning. Given the absence of a calibrated electronic density in MRI, we aimed to assess the equivalence of synthetic CTs generated by a generative adversarial network (GAN) for planning in the brain SRT setting. All patients with available MRIs and treated with intra-cranial SRT for brain metastases from 2014 to 2018 in our institution were included. After co-registration between the diagnostic MRI and the planning CT, a synthetic CT was generated using a 2D-GAN (2D U-Net). Using the initial treatment plan (Pinnacle v9.10, Philips Healthcare), dosimetric comparison was performed using main dose-volume histogram (DVH) endpoints in respect to ICRU 91 guidelines (Dmax, Dmean, D2%, D50%, D98%) as well as local and global gamma analysis with 1%/1 mm, 2%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria and a 10% threshold to the maximum dose. 184 patients were included, with 290 treated brain metastases. The mean number of treated lesions per patient was 1 (range 1-6) and the median planning target volume (PTV) was 6.44 cc (range 0.12-45.41). Local and global gamma passing rates (2%/2 mm) were 99.1 CI95% (98.1-99.4) and 99.7 CI95% (99.6-99.7) respectively (CI: confidence interval). DVHs were comparable, with no significant statistical differences regarding ICRU 91's endpoints. Our study is the first to compare GAN-generated CT scans from diagnostic brain MRIs with initial CT scans for the planning of brain stereotactic radiotherapy. We found high similarity between the planning CT and the synthetic CT for both the organs at risk and the target volumes. Prospective validation is under investigation at our institution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33802499
pii: cancers13051082
doi: 10.3390/cancers13051082
pmc: PMC7959466
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020 May;17(5):279-299
pubmed: 32080373
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jul 28;9:167
pubmed: 25070065
Med Phys. 2016 Dec;43(12):6557
pubmed: 27908187
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
pubmed: 9608475
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Apr;15(4):464-73
pubmed: 24581940
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 1;23(7):1530-7
pubmed: 15735128
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Jan;130:132-138
pubmed: 30017105
Med Phys. 2013 Mar;40(3):031702
pubmed: 23464297
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Apr;180(2):279-300
pubmed: 32030570
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Nov 15;102(4):801-812
pubmed: 30108005
Radiother Oncol. 2008 Jan;86(1):25-9
pubmed: 18023488
Med Phys. 2016 Aug;43(8):4742
pubmed: 27487892
Med Phys. 2018 Jun 16;:
pubmed: 29908062
Front Oncol. 2019 Aug 29;9:826
pubmed: 31555587
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Sep 14;13(1):175
pubmed: 30217163
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1 Suppl):S33-7
pubmed: 18406934
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Nov 15;25(22):6570-6580
pubmed: 31213459
Oncotarget. 2017 Jun 16;8(44):76076-76084
pubmed: 29100293
Med Phys. 2018 Nov;45(11):5218-5233
pubmed: 30216462
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Feb 1;19(2):162-174
pubmed: 28391295
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2014 Mar 21;9034:
pubmed: 25057341
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Dec 1;105(5):1137-1150
pubmed: 31505245
Rinsho Byori. 2000 Jul;48(7):614-20
pubmed: 11051785
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Jul;136:56-63
pubmed: 31015130
Med Phys. 2017 Jul;44(7):e43-e76
pubmed: 28376237
Stat Med. 2004 Jun 30;23(12):1921-86
pubmed: 15195324
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Jun 1;74(2):644-51
pubmed: 19427564
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Jan;21(1):95-102
pubmed: 31943756
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007 Mar 20;8(2):9-17
pubmed: 17592460
Neurooncol Pract. 2020 Mar;7(2):211-217
pubmed: 32626589
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jan 26;12(1):28
pubmed: 28126030
Cancer Radiother. 2018 Apr;22(2):120-125
pubmed: 29576492
Med Phys. 2018 Jul;45(7):2864-2874
pubmed: 29676463
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Dec 1;27(5):1231-9
pubmed: 8262852
Med Phys. 2010 Aug;37(8):4078-101
pubmed: 20879569
Radiat Oncol. 2009 Nov 17;4:54
pubmed: 19919713
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jan 1;100(1):199-217
pubmed: 29254773
Med Phys. 2019 Sep;46(9):4135-4147
pubmed: 31309586
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Nov;125(2):273-279
pubmed: 29079310
Med Phys. 2013 Mar;40(3):031716
pubmed: 23464311
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Dec 1;93(5):1154-61
pubmed: 26581151