Kinga Bernatowicz1, Marta Peroni2, Rosalind Perrin2, Damien C Weber3, Antony Lomax4. 1. Department of Physics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland; Proton Therapy Center, Paul Scherrer Institute, PSI Villigen, Switzerland. Electronic address: kinga.bernatowicz@psi.ch. 2. Proton Therapy Center, Paul Scherrer Institute, PSI Villigen, Switzerland. 3. Department of Physics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Physics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland; Proton Therapy Center, Paul Scherrer Institute, PSI Villigen, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Four-dimensional computed tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (4DCT-MRI) is an image-processing technique for simulating many 4DCT data sets from a static reference CT and motions extracted from 4DMRI studies performed using either volunteers or patients. In this work, different motion extraction approaches were tested using 6 liver cases, and a detailed comparison between 4DCT-MRI and 4DCT was performed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 4DCT-MRI has been generated using 2 approaches. The first approach used motion extracted from 4DMRI as being "most similar" to that of 4DCT from the same patient (subject-specific), and the second approach used the most similar motion obtained from a motion library derived from 4DMRI liver studies of 13 healthy volunteers (population-based). The resulting 4DCT-MRI and 4DCTs were compared using scanned proton 4D dose calculations (4DDC). RESULTS: Dosimetric analysis showed that 93% ± 8% of points inside the clinical target volume (CTV) agreed between 4DCT and subject-specific 4DCT-MRI (gamma analysis: 3%/3 mm). The population-based approach however showed lower dosimetric agreement with only 79% ± 14% points in the CTV reaching the 3%/3 mm criteria. CONCLUSIONS: 4D CT-MRI extends the capabilities of motion modeling for dose calculations by accounting for realistic and variable motion patterns, which can be directly employed in clinical research studies. We have found that the subject-specific liver modeling appears more accurate than the population-based approach. The former is particularly interesting for clinical applications, such as improved target delineation and 4D dose reconstruction for patient-specific QA to allow for inter- and/or intra-fractional plan corrections.
PURPOSE: Four-dimensional computed tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (4DCT-MRI) is an image-processing technique for simulating many 4DCT data sets from a static reference CT and motions extracted from 4DMRI studies performed using either volunteers or patients. In this work, different motion extraction approaches were tested using 6 liver cases, and a detailed comparison between 4DCT-MRI and 4DCT was performed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 4DCT-MRI has been generated using 2 approaches. The first approach used motion extracted from 4DMRI as being "most similar" to that of 4DCT from the same patient (subject-specific), and the second approach used the most similar motion obtained from a motion library derived from 4DMRI liver studies of 13 healthy volunteers (population-based). The resulting 4DCT-MRI and 4DCTs were compared using scanned proton 4D dose calculations (4DDC). RESULTS: Dosimetric analysis showed that 93% ± 8% of points inside the clinical target volume (CTV) agreed between 4DCT and subject-specific 4DCT-MRI (gamma analysis: 3%/3 mm). The population-based approach however showed lower dosimetric agreement with only 79% ± 14% points in the CTV reaching the 3%/3 mm criteria. CONCLUSIONS: 4D CT-MRI extends the capabilities of motion modeling for dose calculations by accounting for realistic and variable motion patterns, which can be directly employed in clinical research studies. We have found that the subject-specific liver modeling appears more accurate than the population-based approach. The former is particularly interesting for clinical applications, such as improved target delineation and 4D dose reconstruction for patient-specific QA to allow for inter- and/or intra-fractional plan corrections.
Authors: Jie Shan; Yunze Yang; Steven E Schild; Thomas B Daniels; William W Wong; Mirek Fatyga; Martin Bues; Terence T Sio; Wei Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Andrew J Boria; Jinsoo Uh; Fakhriddin Pirlepesov; James C Stuckey; Marian Axente; Melissa A Gargone; Chia-Ho Hua Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2018-11-30