Technical note: Phantom-based evaluation of CBCT dose calculation accuracy for use in adaptive radiotherapy.
CBCT
adaptive radiation therapy
dose calculation
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Aug 2024
05 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
02
07
2024
received:
13
09
2023
accepted:
03
07
2024
medline:
5
8
2024
pubmed:
5
8
2024
entrez:
5
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
High-quality 3D-anatomy of the day is needed for treatment plan adaptation in radiotherapy. For online x-ray-based CBCT workflows, one approach is to create a synthetic CT or to utilize a fan-beam CT with corresponding registrations. The former potentially introduces uncertainties in the dose calculation if deformable image registration is used. The latter can introduce burden and complexity to the process, the facility, and the patient. Using the CBCT of the day, acquired on the treatment device, for direct dose calculation and plan adaptation can overcome these limitations. This study aims to assess the accuracy of the calculated dose on the CBCT scans acquired on a Halcyon linear accelerator equipped with HyperSight. HyperSight's new CBCT reconstruction algorithm includes improvements in scatter correction, HU calibration of the imager, and beam shape adaptation. Furthermore, HyperSight introduced a new x-ray detector. To show the effect of the implemented improvements, gamma comparisons of 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, and 1%/1 mm were made between the dose distribution in phantoms calculated on the CBCT reconstructions and the simulation CT scans, considering this the standard of care. The resulting gamma passing rates were compared to those obtained with the Halcyon 3.0 reconstruction and hardware without HyperSight's technologies. Various anatomical phantoms for dosimetric evaluations on brain, head and neck, lung, breast, and prostate cases have been used in this study. The overall results demonstrated that HyperSight outperformed the Halcyon 3.0 version. Based on the gamma analysis, the calculated dose using HyperSight was closer to the CT scan-based doses than the calculated dose using iCBCT Halcyon 3.0 for most cases. Over all plans and gamma criteria, Halcyon 3.0 achieved an average passing rate of 92.9%, whereas HyperSight achieved 98.1%. Using HyperSight CBCT images for direct dose calculation, for example, in (online) plan adaptation, seems feasible for the investigated cases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
High-quality 3D-anatomy of the day is needed for treatment plan adaptation in radiotherapy. For online x-ray-based CBCT workflows, one approach is to create a synthetic CT or to utilize a fan-beam CT with corresponding registrations. The former potentially introduces uncertainties in the dose calculation if deformable image registration is used. The latter can introduce burden and complexity to the process, the facility, and the patient.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Using the CBCT of the day, acquired on the treatment device, for direct dose calculation and plan adaptation can overcome these limitations. This study aims to assess the accuracy of the calculated dose on the CBCT scans acquired on a Halcyon linear accelerator equipped with HyperSight.
METHODS
METHODS
HyperSight's new CBCT reconstruction algorithm includes improvements in scatter correction, HU calibration of the imager, and beam shape adaptation. Furthermore, HyperSight introduced a new x-ray detector. To show the effect of the implemented improvements, gamma comparisons of 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, and 1%/1 mm were made between the dose distribution in phantoms calculated on the CBCT reconstructions and the simulation CT scans, considering this the standard of care. The resulting gamma passing rates were compared to those obtained with the Halcyon 3.0 reconstruction and hardware without HyperSight's technologies. Various anatomical phantoms for dosimetric evaluations on brain, head and neck, lung, breast, and prostate cases have been used in this study.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall results demonstrated that HyperSight outperformed the Halcyon 3.0 version. Based on the gamma analysis, the calculated dose using HyperSight was closer to the CT scan-based doses than the calculated dose using iCBCT Halcyon 3.0 for most cases. Over all plans and gamma criteria, Halcyon 3.0 achieved an average passing rate of 92.9%, whereas HyperSight achieved 98.1%.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Using HyperSight CBCT images for direct dose calculation, for example, in (online) plan adaptation, seems feasible for the investigated cases.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Brock KK. Adaptive radiotherapy: moving into the future. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29:181‐184.
Henke L, Kashani R, Robinson C, et al., Phase I trial of stereotactic MR‐guided online adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for the treatment of oligometastatic or unresectable primary malignancies of the abdomen. Radiother Oncol. 2018;126:519‐526.
Yan D, Vicini F, Wong J, Martinez A. Adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol. 1997;42:123‐132.
Bertholet J, Anastasi G, Noble D, et al., Patterns of practice for adaptive and real‐time radiation therapy (POP‐ART RT) part II: Offline and online plan adaption for interfractional changes. Radiother Oncol. 2020;153:88‐96.
William CS, Allan GF. What is cone‐beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52:707‐730.
Nardi C, Molteni R, Lorini C, et al., Motion artefacts in cone beam CT: an in vitro study about the effects on the images. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150687.
Siewerdsen JH, Jaffray DA. Cone‐beam computed tomography with a flat‐panel imager: magnitude and effects of x‐ray scatter. Med Phys. 2001;28:220‐231.
Thwaites D. Accuracy required and achievable in radiotherapy dosimetry: have modern technology and techniques changed our views? J Phys Conf Ser. 2013;444:012006.
Mutic S, Palta JR, Butker EK, et al., Quality assurance for computed‐tomography simulators and the computed‐tomography‐simulation process: report of the AAPM radiation therapy committee task group no. 66. Med Phys. 2003;30:2762‐2792.
Bissonnette J, 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.
Mijnheer B, Battermann J, Wambersie A. What degree of accuracy is required and can be achieved in photon and neutron therapy? Radiother Oncol. 1987;8:237‐252.
Brahme A. Accuracy Requirements and Quality Assurance of External Beam Therapy with Photons and Electrons. Acta Oncologica; 1988.
Thing RS, Bernchou U, Hansen O, Brink C. Accuracy of dose calculation based on artefact corrected cone beam CT images of lung cancer patients. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2017;1:6‐11.
Rong Y, Smilowitz J, Tewatia D, Tomé WA, Paliwal B. Dose calculation on KV cone beam CT images: an investigation of the Hu‐density conversion stability and dose accuracy using the site‐specific calibration. Med Dosim. 2010;35:195‐207.
Kaplan LP, Elstrøm UV, Møller DS, Hoffmann L. Cone beam CT based dose calculation in the thorax region. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018;7:45‐50.
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.
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. Physica Med. 2015;31:146‐151.
Dunlop A, McQuaid D, Nill S, et al., Comparison of CT number calibration techniques for CBCT‐based dose calculation. Strahlenther Onkol. 2015;191:970‐978.
Bugby S, Jambi L, Lees J. A comparison of CsI:Tl and GOS in a scintillator‐CCD detector for nuclear medicine imaging. J Instrum. 2016;11(9):P09009.
Peterlik I, Strzelecki A, Lehmann M, et al., Reducing residual‐motion artifacts in iterative 3D CBCT reconstruction in image‐guided radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2021;48:6497‐6507.
Peng J, Li H, Laugeman E, et al. Long‐term inter‐protocol kV CBCT image quality assessment for a ring‐gantry linac via automated QA approach. Biomed Phys Eng Expr. 2020;6(1):015025.
Jarema T, Trent A. Using the iterative kV CBCT reconstruction on the Varian Halcyon linear accelerator for radiation therapy planning for pelvis patients. Phys Med. 2019;68:112‐116.
Bolard G. Poster: Evaluation of iCBCT, a new CBCT iterative reconstruction algorithm: potential imaging dose reduction and evaluation of dose calculation accuracy in the pelvic area. In: Annual Conference of the Scientific Association of Swiss Radiation Oncology. 2019.
Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25:656‐661.
M,. de Smet, Schuring D, Nijsten S, Verhaegen F. Accuracy of dose calculations on kV cone beam CT images of lung cancer patients. Med Phys. 2016;43:5934‐5941.
Rong Y, Smilowitz J, Tewatia D, Tomé W, Paliwal B. Dose calculation on kV cone beam CT images: an investigation of the Hu‐density conversion stability and dose accuracy using the site‐specific calibration. Med Dosim. 2010;35(3):195‐207.