Patrick Wohlfahrt1, Christian Möhler2, Kristin Stützer3, Steffen Greilich2, Christian Richter4. 1. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: Patrick.Wohlfahrt@OncoRay.de. 2. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany. 4. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To reduce range uncertainty in particle therapy, an accurate computation of stopping-power ratios (SPRs) based on computed tomography (CT) is crucial. Here, we assess range differences between the state-of-the-art CT-number-to-SPR conversion using a generic Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) and a direct patient-specific SPR prediction (RhoSigma) based on dual-energy CT (DECT) in 100 proton treatment fields. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 25 head-tumor and 25 prostate-cancer patients, the clinically applied treatment plan, optimized using a HLUT, was recalculated with RhoSigma as CT-number-to-SPR conversion. Depth-dose curves in beam direction were extracted for both dose distributions in a regular grid and range deviations were determined and correlated to SPR differences within the irradiated volume. RESULTS: Absolute (relative) mean water-equivalent range shifts of 1.1mm (1.2%) and 4.1mm (1.7%) were observed in the head-tumor and prostate-cancer cohort, respectively. Due to the case dependency of a generic HLUT, range deviations within treatment fields strongly depend on the tissues traversed leading to a larger variation within one patient than between patients. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of patient-specific range deviations between HLUT and the more accurate DECT-based SPR prediction is clinically relevant. A clinical application of the latter seems feasible as demonstrated in this study using medically approved systems from CT acquisition to treatment planning.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To reduce range uncertainty in particle therapy, an accurate computation of stopping-power ratios (SPRs) based on computed tomography (CT) is crucial. Here, we assess range differences between the state-of-the-art CT-number-to-SPR conversion using a generic Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) and a direct patient-specific SPR prediction (RhoSigma) based on dual-energy CT (DECT) in 100 proton treatment fields. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 25 head-tumor and 25 prostate-cancerpatients, the clinically applied treatment plan, optimized using a HLUT, was recalculated with RhoSigma as CT-number-to-SPR conversion. Depth-dose curves in beam direction were extracted for both dose distributions in a regular grid and range deviations were determined and correlated to SPR differences within the irradiated volume. RESULTS: Absolute (relative) mean water-equivalent range shifts of 1.1mm (1.2%) and 4.1mm (1.7%) were observed in the head-tumor and prostate-cancer cohort, respectively. Due to the case dependency of a generic HLUT, range deviations within treatment fields strongly depend on the tissues traversed leading to a larger variation within one patient than between patients. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of patient-specific range deviations between HLUT and the more accurate DECT-based SPR prediction is clinically relevant. A clinical application of the latter seems feasible as demonstrated in this study using medically approved systems from CT acquisition to treatment planning.
Authors: Vicki T Taasti; David C Hansen; Gregory J Michalak; Amanda J Deisher; Jon J Kruse; Ludvig P Muren; Jørgen B B Petersen; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Fernando Hueso-González; Moritz Rabe; Thomas A Ruggieri; Thomas Bortfeld; Joost M Verburg Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Lennart Volz; Pierluigi Piersimoni; Vladimir A Bashkirov; Stephan Brons; Charles-Antoine Collins-Fekete; Robert P Johnson; Reinhard W Schulte; Joao Seco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Friderike K Longarino; Antonia Kowalewski; Thomas Tessonnier; Stewart Mein; Benjamin Ackermann; Jürgen Debus; Andrea Mairani; Wolfram Stiller Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Brent van der Heyden; Lotte E J R Schyns; Mark Podesta; Ana Vaniqui; Isabel P Almeida; Guillaume Landry; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-05-25