Literature DB >> 16112465

Determination of CT-to-density conversion relationship for image-based treatment planning systems.

Cheng B Saw1, Alphonse Loper, Krishna Komanduri, Tony Combine, Saiful Huq, Carol Scicutella.   

Abstract

The implementation of tissue inhomogeneity correction in image-based treatment planning will improve the accuracy of radiation dose calculations for patients undergoing external-beam radiotherapy. Before the tissue inhomogeneity correction can be applied, the relationship between the computed tomography (CT) value and density must be established. This tissue characterization relationship allows the conversion of CT value in each voxel of the CT images into density for use in the dose calculations. This paper describes the proper procedure of establishing the CT value to density conversion relationship. A tissue characterization phantom with 17 inserts made of different materials was scanned using a GE Lightspeed Plus CT scanner (120 kVp). These images were then downloaded into the Eclipse and Pinnacle treatment planning systems. At the treatment planning workstation, the axial images were retrieved to determine the CT value of the inserts. A region of interest was drawn on the central portion of the insert and the mean CT value and its standard deviation were determined. The mean CT value was plotted against the density of the tissue inserts and fitted with bilinear equations. A new set of CT values vs. densities was generated from the bilinear equations and then entered into the treatment planning systems. The need to obtain CT values through the treatment planning system is very clear. The 2 treatment planning systems use different CT value ranges, one from -1024 to 3071 and the other from 0 to 4096. If the range is correct, it would result in inappropriate use of the conversion curve. In addition to the difference in the range of CT values, one treatment planning system uses physical density, while the other uses relative electron density.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16112465     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2005.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  16 in total

1.  Study of an image-derived SUV and a modified SUV using mouse FDG-PET.

Authors:  Xiujuan Zheng; Chin-Lung Yu; Wei Sha; Caius Radu; Sung-Cheng Huang; Dagan Feng
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  Early Changes in Serial CBCT-Measured Parotid Gland Biomarkers Predict Chronic Xerostomia After Head and Neck Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Benjamin S Rosen; Peter G Hawkins; Daniel F Polan; James M Balter; Kristy K Brock; Justin D Kamp; Christina M Lockhart; Avraham Eisbruch; Michelle L Mierzwa; Randall K Ten Haken; Issam El Naqa
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 3.  Imaging for Target Delineation and Treatment Planning in Radiation Oncology: Current and Emerging Techniques.

Authors:  Sonja Stieb; Brigid McDonald; Mary Gronberg; Grete May Engeseth; Renjie He; Clifton David Fuller
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 3.722

4.  Personalized predictive lung dosimetry by technetium-99m macroaggregated albumin SPECT/CT for yttrium-90 radioembolization.

Authors:  Yung Hsiang Kao; Butch M Magsombol; Ying Toh; Kiang Hiong Tay; Pierce Kh Chow; Anthony Sw Goh; David Ce Ng
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2014-06-29       Impact factor: 3.138

Review 5.  Computed tomography imaging parameters for inhomogeneity correction in radiation treatment planning.

Authors:  Indra J Das; Chee-Wai Cheng; Minsong Cao; Peter A S Johnstone
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

6.  Effects of 16-bit CT imaging scanning conditions for metal implants on radiotherapy dose distribution.

Authors:  Liugang Gao; Hongfei Sun; Xinye Ni; Mingming Fang; Tao Lin
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 2.967

7.  Assessment of regional pulmonary blood flow using 68Ga-DOTA PET.

Authors:  Carlos Velasco; Jesus Mateo; Arnoldo Santos; Adriana Mota-Cobian; Fernando Herranz; Juan Pellico; Ruben A Mota; Samuel España; Jesus Ruiz-Cabello
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 3.138

8.  AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams.

Authors:  Jennifer B Smilowitz; Indra J Das; Vladimir Feygelman; Benedick A Fraass; Stephen F Kry; Ingrid R Marshall; Dimitris N Mihailidis; Zoubir Ouhib; Timothy Ritter; Michael G Snyder; Lynne Fairobent
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Investigation of the usability of conebeam CT data sets for dose calculation.

Authors:  Anne Richter; Qiaoqiao Hu; Doreen Steglich; Kurt Baier; Jürgen Wilbert; Matthias Guckenberger; Michael Flentje
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Patient-specific calibration of cone-beam computed tomography data sets for radiotherapy dose calculations and treatment plan assessment.

Authors:  Michael MacFarlane; Daniel Wong; Douglas A Hoover; Eugene Wong; Carol Johnson; Jerry J Battista; Jeff Z Chen
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.