Satoshi Kida1, Matthieu Bal2, Sven Kabus3, Mohammadreza Negahdar4, Xin Shan4, Billy W Loo4, Paul J Keall5, Tokihiro Yamamoto6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 2. Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands. 3. Department of Digital Imaging, Philips Research, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA. 5. Radiation Physics Laboratory, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Australia. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: toyamamoto@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the hypothesis that CT ventilation functional image-based IMRT plans designed to avoid irradiating highly-functional lung regions are comparable to single-photon emission CT (SPECT) ventilation functional image-based plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three IMRT plans were created for eight thoracic cancer patients using: (1) CT ventilation functional images, (2) SPECT ventilation functional images, and (3) anatomic images (no functional images). CT ventilation images were created by deformable image registration of 4D-CT image data sets and quantitative analysis. The resulting plans were analyzed for the relationship between the deviations of CT-functional plan metrics from anatomic plan metrics (ΔCT-anatomic) and those of SPECT-functional plans (ΔSPECT-anatomic), and moreover for agreements of various metrics between the CT-functional and SPECT-functional plans. RESULTS: The relationship between ΔCT-anatomic and ΔSPECT-anatomic was strong (e.g., R=0.94; linear regression slope 0.71). The average differences and 95% limits of agreement between the CT-functional and SPECT-functional plan metrics (except for monitor units) for various structures were mostly less than 1% and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a reasonable agreement between the CT ventilation functional image-based IMRT plans and SPECT-functional plans, suggesting the potential for CT ventilation imaging to serve as a surrogate for SPECT ventilation in functional image-guided radiotherapy.
PURPOSE: To investigate the hypothesis that CT ventilation functional image-based IMRT plans designed to avoid irradiating highly-functional lung regions are comparable to single-photon emission CT (SPECT) ventilation functional image-based plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three IMRT plans were created for eight thoracic cancerpatients using: (1) CT ventilation functional images, (2) SPECT ventilation functional images, and (3) anatomic images (no functional images). CT ventilation images were created by deformable image registration of 4D-CT image data sets and quantitative analysis. The resulting plans were analyzed for the relationship between the deviations of CT-functional plan metrics from anatomic plan metrics (ΔCT-anatomic) and those of SPECT-functional plans (ΔSPECT-anatomic), and moreover for agreements of various metrics between the CT-functional and SPECT-functional plans. RESULTS: The relationship between ΔCT-anatomic and ΔSPECT-anatomic was strong (e.g., R=0.94; linear regression slope 0.71). The average differences and 95% limits of agreement between the CT-functional and SPECT-functional plan metrics (except for monitor units) for various structures were mostly less than 1% and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a reasonable agreement between the CT ventilation functional image-based IMRT plans and SPECT-functional plans, suggesting the potential for CT ventilation imaging to serve as a surrogate for SPECT ventilation in functional image-guided radiotherapy.
Authors: John Kipritidis; Bilal A Tahir; Guillaume Cazoulat; Michael S Hofman; Shankar Siva; Jason Callahan; Nicholas Hardcastle; Tokihiro Yamamoto; Gary E Christensen; Joseph M Reinhardt; Noriyuki Kadoya; Taylor J Patton; Sarah E Gerard; Isabella Duarte; Ben Archibald-Heeren; Mikel Byrne; Rick Sims; Scott Ramsay; Jeremy T Booth; Enid Eslick; Fiona Hegi-Johnson; Henry C Woodruff; Rob H Ireland; Jim M Wild; Jing Cai; John E Bayouth; Kristy Brock; Paul J Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Matthieu Bal; Karl Bzdusek; Paul J Keall; Cari Wright; Stanley H Benedict; Megan E Daly Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Farnoush Forghani; Taylor Patton; Jennifer Kwak; David Thomas; Quentin Diot; Chad Rusthoven; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; Inga Grills; Thomas Guerrero; Moyed Miften; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 6.901