Reko Kemppainen1,2, Sami Suilamo3,4, Terhi Tuokkola5, Paula Lindholm4, Martin H Deppe1, Jani Keyriläinen3,4. 1. a Philips MR Therapy , Vantaa , Finland. 2. b Department of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering , Aalto University School of Science , Espoo , Finland. 3. c Department of Medical Physics , Turku University Hospital , Turku , Finland. 4. d Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy , Turku University Hospital , Turku , Finland. 5. e Turku PET-Centre, Turku University Hospital, Finland and University of Turku , Turku , Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical feasibility of using pseudo-computed tomography (pCT) images derived from magnetic resonance (MR) images for external bean radiation therapy (EBRT) planning for prostate cancer patients has been well demonstrated. This paper investigates the feasibility of applying an MR-derived, pCT planning approach to additional types of cancer in the pelvis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen patients (five prostate cancer patients, five rectal cancer patients, and five gynecological cancer patients) receiving EBRT at Turku University Hospital (Turku, Finland) were included in the study. Images from an MRCAT (Magnetic Resonance for Calculating ATtenuation, Philips, Vantaa, Finland) pCT method were generated as a part of a clinical MR-simulation procedure. Dose calculation accuracy was assessed by comparing the pCT-based calculation with a CT-based calculation. In addition, the degree of geometric accuracy was studied. RESULTS: The median relative difference of PTV mean dose between CT and pCT images was within 0.8% for all tumor types. When assessing the tumor site-specific accuracy, the median [range] relative dose differences to the PTV mean were 0.7 [-0.11;1.05]% for the prostate cases, 0.3 [-0.25;0.57]% for the rectal cases, and 0.09 [-0.69;0.25]% for the gynecological cancer cases. System-induced geometric distortion was measured to be less than 1 mm for all PTV volumes and the effect on the PTV median dose was less than 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: According to the comparison, using pCT for clinical EBRT planning and dose calculation in the three investigated types of pelvic cancers is feasible. Further studies are required to demonstrate the applicability to a larger cohort of patients.
BACKGROUND: The clinical feasibility of using pseudo-computed tomography (pCT) images derived from magnetic resonance (MR) images for external bean radiation therapy (EBRT) planning for prostate cancerpatients has been well demonstrated. This paper investigates the feasibility of applying an MR-derived, pCT planning approach to additional types of cancer in the pelvis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen patients (five prostate cancerpatients, five rectal cancerpatients, and five gynecological cancerpatients) receiving EBRT at Turku University Hospital (Turku, Finland) were included in the study. Images from an MRCAT (Magnetic Resonance for Calculating ATtenuation, Philips, Vantaa, Finland) pCT method were generated as a part of a clinical MR-simulation procedure. Dose calculation accuracy was assessed by comparing the pCT-based calculation with a CT-based calculation. In addition, the degree of geometric accuracy was studied. RESULTS: The median relative difference of PTV mean dose between CT and pCT images was within 0.8% for all tumor types. When assessing the tumor site-specific accuracy, the median [range] relative dose differences to the PTV mean were 0.7 [-0.11;1.05]% for the prostate cases, 0.3 [-0.25;0.57]% for the rectal cases, and 0.09 [-0.69;0.25]% for the gynecological cancer cases. System-induced geometric distortion was measured to be less than 1 mm for all PTV volumes and the effect on the PTV median dose was less than 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: According to the comparison, using pCT for clinical EBRT planning and dose calculation in the three investigated types of pelvic cancers is feasible. Further studies are required to demonstrate the applicability to a larger cohort of patients.
Authors: Neelam Tyagi; Michael J Zelefsky; Andreas Wibmer; Kristen Zakian; Sarah Burleson; Laura Happersett; Aleksi Halkola; Mo Kadbi; Margie Hunt Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-10-13
Authors: Iva Bratova; Petr Paluska; Jakub Grepl; Petra Sykorova; Jan Jansa; Miroslav Hodek; Igor Sirak; Milan Vosmik; Jiri Petera Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: Reko Kemppainen; Sami Suilamo; Iiro Ranta; Marko Pesola; Aleksi Halkola; Alvin Eufemio; Heikki Minn; Jani Keyriläinen Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-06-22
Authors: Anna Kuisma; Iiro Ranta; Jani Keyriläinen; Sami Suilamo; Pauliina Wright; Marko Pesola; Lizette Warner; Eliisa Löyttyniemi; Heikki Minn Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-03-13
Authors: Matteo Maspero; Marcus D Tyyger; Rob H N Tijssen; Peter R Seevinck; Martijn P W Intven; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-02
Authors: Victoria Y Yu; Jani Keyrilainen; Sami Suilamo; Ilyes Beslimane; Alex Dresner; Aleksi Halkola; Uulke A Van der Heide; Neelam Tyagi Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 2.102