Yusuke Onozato1, Noriyuki Kadoya2, Yukio Fujita1, Kazuhiro Arai1, Suguru Dobashi3, Ken Takeda3, Kazuma Kishi4, Rei Umezawa1, Haruo Matsushita1, Keiichi Jingu1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. Electronic address: kadoya.n@rad.med.tohoku.ac.jp. 3. Department of Radiological Technology, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. 4. Radiation Technology, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the accuracy of the dose calculation of On-Board Imager (Varian, Palo Alto, CA) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with deformable image registration (DIR), using the multilevel-threshold (MLT) algorithm and histogram matching (HM) algorithm in pelvic radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One pelvis phantom and 10 patients with prostate cancer treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy were studied. To minimize the effect of organ deformation and different Hounsfield unit values between planning CT (PCT) and CBCT, we modified CBCT (mCBCT) with DIR by using the MLT (mCBCT(MLT)) and HM (mCBCT(HM)) algorithms. To evaluate the accuracy of the dose calculation, we compared dose differences in dosimetric parameters (mean dose [D(mean)], minimum dose [D(min)], and maximum dose [D(max)]) for planning target volume, rectum, and bladder between PCT (reference) and CBCTs or mCBCTs. Furthermore, we investigated the effect of organ deformation compared with DIR and rigid registration (RR). We determined whether dose differences between PCT and mCBCTs were significantly lower than in CBCT by using Student t test. RESULTS: For patients, the average dose differences in all dosimetric parameters of CBCT with DIR were smaller than those of CBCT with RR (eg, rectum; 0.54% for DIR vs 1.24% for RR). For the mCBCTs with DIR, the average dose differences in all dosimetric parameters were less than 1.0%. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the accuracy of the dose calculation in CBCT, mCBCT(MLT), and mCBCT(HM) with DIR for 10 patients. The results showed that dose differences in D(mean), D(min), and D(max) in mCBCTs were within 1%, which were significantly better than those in CBCT, especially for the rectum (P<.05). Our results indicate that the mCBCT(MLT) and mCBCT(HM) can be useful for improving the dose calculation for adaptive radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the accuracy of the dose calculation of On-Board Imager (Varian, Palo Alto, CA) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with deformable image registration (DIR), using the multilevel-threshold (MLT) algorithm and histogram matching (HM) algorithm in pelvic radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One pelvis phantom and 10 patients with prostate cancer treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy were studied. To minimize the effect of organ deformation and different Hounsfield unit values between planning CT (PCT) and CBCT, we modified CBCT (mCBCT) with DIR by using the MLT (mCBCT(MLT)) and HM (mCBCT(HM)) algorithms. To evaluate the accuracy of the dose calculation, we compared dose differences in dosimetric parameters (mean dose [D(mean)], minimum dose [D(min)], and maximum dose [D(max)]) for planning target volume, rectum, and bladder between PCT (reference) and CBCTs or mCBCTs. Furthermore, we investigated the effect of organ deformation compared with DIR and rigid registration (RR). We determined whether dose differences between PCT and mCBCTs were significantly lower than in CBCT by using Student t test. RESULTS: For patients, the average dose differences in all dosimetric parameters of CBCT with DIR were smaller than those of CBCT with RR (eg, rectum; 0.54% for DIR vs 1.24% for RR). For the mCBCTs with DIR, the average dose differences in all dosimetric parameters were less than 1.0%. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the accuracy of the dose calculation in CBCT, mCBCT(MLT), and mCBCT(HM) with DIR for 10 patients. The results showed that dose differences in D(mean), D(min), and D(max) in mCBCTs were within 1%, which were significantly better than those in CBCT, especially for the rectum (P<.05). Our results indicate that the mCBCT(MLT) and mCBCT(HM) can be useful for improving the dose calculation for adaptive radiation therapy.
Authors: Valentina Giacometti; Raymond B King; Christina E Agnew; Denise M Irvine; Suneil Jain; Alan R Hounsell; Conor K McGarry Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Samer Salamekh; Yi Rong; Ahmet S Ayan; Xiaokui Mo; Terence M Williams; Nina A Mayr; John C Grecula; Arnab Chakravarti; Meng Xu-Welliver Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 3.240
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