Literature DB >> 10624344

Relative electron density calibration of CT scanners for radiotherapy treatment planning.

S J Thomas1.   

Abstract

Several authors have reported data on the variation of Hounsfield numbers with electron density in CT scanners. The data can be fitted with a double straight line approach. For non-bone tissues (or phantom materials with similar atomic numbers) the data from all authors can be fitted to a single straight line. For bone-like materials the line varies between authors. The method used to measure electron density has a greater effect than the differences between scanners, or the kilovoltage used on a given scanner. The effect of variation of these slopes on the accuracy of radiotherapy treatment planning is analysed. For typical radiotherapy beams, to produce a 1% error in dosimetry would require errors of over 8% in bone electron density. Using a single pair of calibration lines for all the scanners reported would give dosimetric errors of under 0.8%. A formula is recommended as a default for use in planning systems in circumstances where no data are available for a particular scanner.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10624344     DOI: 10.1259/bjr.72.860.10624344

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  25 in total

1.  Computed tomography as a source of electron density information for radiation treatment planning.

Authors:  Witold Skrzyński; Sylwia Zielińska-Dabrowska; Marta Wachowicz; Wioletta Slusarczyk-Kacprzyk; Paweł F Kukołowicz; Wojciech Bulski
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Influence of intravenous contrast agent on dose calculation in 3-D treatment planning for radiosurgery of cerebral arteriovenous malformations.

Authors:  Angelika Zabel-du Bois; Benjamin Ackermann; Henrik Hauswald; Oliver Schramm; Gabriele Sroka-Perez; Peter Huber; Jürgen Debus; Stefanie Milker-Zabel
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.621

3.  Hounsfield units variations: impact on CT-density based conversion tables and their effects on dose distribution.

Authors:  B Zurl; R Tiefling; P Winkler; P Kindl; K S Kapp
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  Can CT scan protocols used for radiotherapy treatment planning be adjusted to optimize image quality and patient dose? A systematic review.

Authors:  Anne T Davis; Antony L Palmer; Andrew Nisbet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Positional dependence of the CT number with use of a cone-beam CT scanner for an electron density phantom in particle beam therapy.

Authors:  Yohsuke Kusano; Saki Uesaka; Kaori Yajima; Motoki Kumagai; Hideyuki Mizuno; Shinichiro Mori
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-12-16

6.  Treatment planning using MRI data: an analysis of the dose calculation accuracy for different treatment regions.

Authors:  Joakim H Jonsson; Magnus G Karlsson; Mikael Karlsson; Tufve Nyholm
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Development of a hybrid magnetic resonance/computed tomography-compatible phantom for magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy.

Authors:  Min-Joo Kim; Seu-Ran Lee; Kyu-Ho Song; Hyeon-Man Baek; Bo-Young Choe; Tae Suk Suh
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 2.724

8.  Quantitative assessment of irradiated lung volume and lung mass in breast cancer patients treated with tangential fields in combination with deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH).

Authors:  Brigitte Zurl; Heidi Stranzl; Peter Winkler; Karin Sigrid Kapp
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 3.621

9.  Use of kilovoltage X-ray volume imaging in patient dose calculation for head-and-neck and partial brain radiation therapy.

Authors:  Weigang Hu; Jinsong Ye; Jiazhou Wang; Xuejun Ma; Zhen Zhang
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-04-19       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Evaluation of the deformation and corresponding dosimetric implications in prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  Ning Wen; Carri Glide-Hurst; Teamour Nurushev; Lei Xing; Jinkoo Kim; Hualiang Zhong; Dezhi Liu; Manju Liu; Jay Burmeister; Benjamin Movsas; Indrin J Chetty
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.