PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of computed tomography (CT) systems of various designs as a source of electron density (rho(el)) data for treatment planning of radiation therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dependence of CT numbers on relative electron density of tissue-equivalent materials (HU-rho(el) relationship) was measured for several general-purpose CT systems (single-slice, multislice, wide-bore multislice), for radiotherapy simulators with a single-slice CT and kV CBCT (cone-beam CT) options, as well as for linear accelerators with kV and MV CBCT systems. Electron density phantoms of four sizes were used. Measurement data were compared with the standard HU-rhoel relationships predefined in two commercial treatment-planning systems (TPS). RESULTS: The HU-rho(el) relationships obtained with all of the general-purpose CT scanners operating at voltages close to 120 kV were very similar to each other and close to those predefined in TPS. Some dependency of HU values on tube voltage was observed for bone- equivalent materials. For a given tube voltage, differences in results obtained for different phantoms were larger than those obtained for different CT scanners. For radiotherapy simulators and for kV CBCT systems, the information on rhoel was much less precise because of poor uniformity of images. For MV CBCT, the results were significantly different than for kV systems due to the differing energy spectrum of the beam. CONCLUSION: The HU-rho(el) relationships predefined in TPS can be used for general-purpose CT systems operating at voltages close to 120 kV. For nontypical imaging systems (e.g., CBCT), the relationship can be significantly different and, therefore, it should always be measured and carefully analyzed before using CT data for treatment planning.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of computed tomography (CT) systems of various designs as a source of electron density (rho(el)) data for treatment planning of radiation therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dependence of CT numbers on relative electron density of tissue-equivalent materials (HU-rho(el) relationship) was measured for several general-purpose CT systems (single-slice, multislice, wide-bore multislice), for radiotherapy simulators with a single-slice CT and kV CBCT (cone-beam CT) options, as well as for linear accelerators with kV and MV CBCT systems. Electron density phantoms of four sizes were used. Measurement data were compared with the standard HU-rhoel relationships predefined in two commercial treatment-planning systems (TPS). RESULTS: The HU-rho(el) relationships obtained with all of the general-purpose CT scanners operating at voltages close to 120 kV were very similar to each other and close to those predefined in TPS. Some dependency of HU values on tube voltage was observed for bone- equivalent materials. For a given tube voltage, differences in results obtained for different phantoms were larger than those obtained for different CT scanners. For radiotherapy simulators and for kV CBCT systems, the information on rhoel was much less precise because of poor uniformity of images. For MV CBCT, the results were significantly different than for kV systems due to the differing energy spectrum of the beam. CONCLUSION: The HU-rho(el) relationships predefined in TPS can be used for general-purpose CT systems operating at voltages close to 120 kV. For nontypical imaging systems (e.g., CBCT), the relationship can be significantly different and, therefore, it should always be measured and carefully analyzed before using CT data for treatment planning.
Authors: Maciej Pech; Konrad Mohnike; Gero Wieners; Ewa Bialek; Oliver Dudeck; Max Seidensticker; Nils Peters; Peter Wust; Günther Gademann; Jens Ricke Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: G Z Gong; Y Yin; L G Xing; Y J Guo; T Liu; J Chen; J Lu; C Ma; T Sun; T Bai; G Zhang; R Wang Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Marianne Linthorst; Tomas Drizdal; Hans Joosten; Gerard C van Rhoon; Jacoba van der Zee Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-11-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ghazal Shafai-Erfani; Yang Lei; Yingzi Liu; Yinan Wang; Tonghe Wang; Jim Zhong; Tian Liu; Mark McDonald; Walter J Curran; Jun Zhou; Hui-Kuo Shu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2019-09-30