ACR benchmark testing of a novel high-speed ring-gantry linac kV-CBCT system.

ACR CBCT treatment planning

Journal

Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 Mar 2024
Historique:
revised: 21 07 2023
received: 19 04 2023
accepted: 16 01 2024
medline: 23 3 2024
pubmed: 23 3 2024
entrez: 23 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

A new generation cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) system with new hardware design and advanced image reconstruction algorithms is available for radiation treatment simulation or adaptive radiotherapy (HyperSight CBCT imaging solution, Varian Medical Systems-a Siemens Healthineers company). This study assesses the CBCT image quality metrics using the criteria routinely used for diagnostic CT scanner accreditation as a first step towards the future use of HyperSight CBCT images for treatment planning and target/organ delineations. Image performance was evaluated using American College of Radiology (ACR) Program accreditation phantom tests for diagnostic computed tomography systems (CTs) and compared HyperSight images with a standard treatment planning diagnostic CT scanner (Siemens SOMATOM Edge) and with existing CBCT systems (Varian TrueBeam version 2.7 and Varian Halcyon version 2.0).  Image quality performance for all Varian HyperSight CBCT vendor-provided imaging protocols were assessed using ACR head and body ring CT phantoms, then compared to existing imaging modalities. Image quality analysis metrics included contrast-to-noise (CNR), spatial resolution, Hounsfield number (HU) accuracy, image scaling, and uniformity. All image quality assessments were made following the recommendations and passing criteria provided by the ACR. The Varian HyperSight CBCT imaging system demonstrated excellent image quality, with the majority of vendor-provided imaging protocols capable of passing all ACR CT accreditation standards. Nearly all (8/11) vendor-provided protocols passed ACR criteria using the ACR head phantom, with the Abdomen Large, Pelvis Large, and H&N vendor-provided protocols produced HU uniformity values slightly exceeding passing criteria but remained within the allowable minor deviation levels (5-7 HU maximum differences). Compared to other existing CT and CBCT imaging modalities, both HyperSight Head and Pelvis imaging protocols matched the performance of the SOMATOM CT scanner, and both the HyperSight and SOMATOM CT substantially surpassed the performance of the Halcyon 2.0 and TrueBeam version 2.7 systems. Varian HyperSight CBCT imaging system could pass almost all tests for all vendor-provided protocols using ACR accreditation criteria, with image quality similar to those produced by diagnostic CT scanners and significantly better than existing linac-based CBCT imaging systems.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38520072
doi: 10.1002/acm2.14299
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e14299

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Références

Bushberg JT, Seibert AJ, Leidholdt Jr EM, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 4th ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2021.
Srnivasan K, Mohammadi M, Shepherd J. Applications of linac‐mounted kilovoltage Cone‐beam Computed Tomography in modern radiation therapy: a review. Polish J Radiol. 2014;79:181‐193. doi:10.12659/PJR.890745
Bissonnette JP, Balter PA, Dong L, et al. Quality assurance for image‐guided radiation therapy utilizing CT‐based technologies: a report of the AAPM TG‐179. Med Phys. 2012;39:1946‐1963. doi:10.1118/1.3690466
Yang Y, Schreibmann E, Li T, Wang C, Xing L. Evaluation of on‐board kV cone beam CT (CBCT)‐based dose calculation. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:685‐705. doi:10.1088/0031‐9155/52/3/011
Richter A, Hu Q, Steglich D, et al. Investigation of the usability of conebeam CT data sets for dose calculation. Radiat Oncol. 2008;3:1‐13. doi:10.1186/1748‐717X‐3‐42
Wiegert J, Bertram M, Rose G, Aach T. Model based scatter correction for cone‐beam computed tomography. Phys Med Imaging. 2005;5745:271. doi:10.1117/12.594520
Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:873‐879. doi:10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02076.x
Cao Y, Ma T, de Boer SF, Wang IZ. Image artifacts caused by incorrect bowtie filters in cone‐beam CT image‐guided radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21:153‐159. doi:10.1002/acm2.12888
Cao M, Siddiqui F, Parker W, Doemer A. considerations : a state of the ART review from NRG. Oncology. 2022;109:1054‐1075. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.10.021.Adaptive
O'Hara CJ, Bird D, Al‐Qaisieh B, Speight R. Assessment of CBCT–based synthetic CT generation accuracy for adaptive radiotherapy planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23:e13737. doi:10.1002/acm2.13737
Stanley DN, Ph D, Harms J, et al. A roadmap for implementation of kV‐CBCT online adaptive radiation therapy and initial first year experiences 2022.
Liu Y, Lei Y, Wang T, et al. CBCT‐based synthetic CT generation using deep‐attention cycleGAN for pancreatic adaptive radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2020;47:2472‐2483. doi:10.1002/mp.14121
Veiga C, McClelland J, Moinuddin S, et al. Toward adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck patients: feasibility study on using CT‐to‐CBCT deformable registration for “dose of the day” calculations. Med Phys. 2014;41:031703. doi:10.1118/1.4864240
Halcyon and Ethos Radiotherapy System: IEC Accompanying Documents Type Tests and Procedures HalcyonTM EthosTM Radiotherapy System. Palo Alto, CA: 2022.
Netherton T, Li Y, Gao S, et al. Experience in commissioning the halcyon linac. Med Phys. 2019;46:4304‐4313. doi:10.1002/mp.13723
Crain J. Benefits of ACR accreditation. Am Coll Radiol. 2020. https://accreditationsupport.acr.org/support/solutions/articles/11000045690‐benefits‐of‐acr‐accreditation
McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, McNitt‐Gray MF, et al. The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Computed Tomography (CT) accreditation program: practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. Med Phys. 2004;31:2423‐2442. doi:10.1118/1.1769632
Albus K. Phantom overview: CT. Am Coll Radiol. 2023.
Wang A, Maslowski A, Messmer P, et al. Acuros CTS: a fast, linear Boltzmann transport equation solver for computed tomography scatter—Part II: system modeling, scatter correction, and optimization. Med Phys. 2018;45:1914‐1925. doi:10.1002/mp.12849
Washio H, Ohira S, Funama Y, et al. Accuracy of dose calculation on iterative CBCT for head and neck radiotherapy. Phys Medica. 2021;86:106‐112. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.05.027
Barateau A, Garlopeau C, Cugny A, et al. Dose calculation accuracy of different image value to density tables for cone‐beam CT planning in head & neck and pelvic localizations. Phys Medica. 2015;31:146‐151. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.12.007
Guan H, Dong H. Dose calculation accuracy using cone‐beam CT (CBCT) for pelvic adaptive radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:6239‐6250. doi:10.1088/0031‐9155/54/20/013
Davis AT, Palmer AL, Nisbet A. Can CT scan protocols used for radiotherapy treatment planning be adjusted to optimize image quality and patient dose? A systematic review. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20160406. doi:10.1259/bjr.20160406
Taneja S, Barbee DL, Rea AJ, Malin M. CBCT image quality QA: establishing a quantitative program. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21:215‐225. doi:10.1002/acm2.13062
Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task group 142 report: quality assurance of medical acceleratorsa. Med Phys. 2009;36:4197‐4212. doi:10.1118/1.3190392
Harris D, McNicoll L, Epstein‐Lubow G, Kali S, Thomas P, Usselman CWNSSJRB. Long‐term inter‐protocol kV CBCT image quality assessment for a ring‐gantry linac via automated QA approach. Physiol Behav. 2017;176:139‐148. doi:10.1088/2057‐1976/ab693a.Long‐term

Auteurs

Allison Haertter (A)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Michael Salerno (M)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Brandon Koger (B)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Christopher Kennedy (C)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Michelle Alonso-Basanta (M)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Lei Dong (L)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Boon-Keng Teo (BK)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Taoran Li (T)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Classifications MeSH