Arthur J Olch1, Parham Alaei2. 1. Radiation Oncology Program, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is often used for patient setup based solely on bony anatomy. The goal of this work was to evaluate whether CBCT dose can be lowered to the level of kV image pair doses when used for bony anatomy-based IGRT without compromising positioning accuracy. METHODS: An anthropomorphic phantom was CT scanned in the head, head and neck, chest, and pelvis regions and setup on the linear accelerator couch with the isocenter near the planned location. Cone beam computed tomographies were performed with the standard "full dose" protocol supplied by the linac vendor. With sequentially lowering the dose, three-dimensional (3D) matching was performed for each without shifting the couch. The standard kV image pair protocol for each site was also used to image the phantoms. For all studies, six degrees of freedom was included in the 2D or 3D matching to the extent they could be employed. Imaging doses were determined in air at isocenter following the TG-61 formalism. RESULTS: Cone beam computed tomography dose was reduced by 81-98% of the standard CBCT protocol to nearly that of the standard kV image pair dose for each site. Relative to the standard CBCT shift values, translational shifts were within 0.3 and 1.6 mm for all sites, for the reduced dose CBCT and kV image pair, respectively. Rotational shifts were within 0.2 degree and 0.7 degrees for all sites, for the reduced dose CBCTs and kV image pair, respectively. CONCLUSION: For bony anatomy-based image guidance, CBCT dose can be reduced to a value similar to that of a kV image pair with similar or better patient positioning accuracy than kV image pair alignment. Where rotations are important to correct, CBCT will be superior to orthogonal kV imaging without significantly increased imaging dose. This is especially important for image guidance for pediatric patient treatments.
PURPOSE: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is often used for patient setup based solely on bony anatomy. The goal of this work was to evaluate whether CBCT dose can be lowered to the level of kV image pair doses when used for bony anatomy-based IGRT without compromising positioning accuracy. METHODS: An anthropomorphic phantom was CT scanned in the head, head and neck, chest, and pelvis regions and setup on the linear accelerator couch with the isocenter near the planned location. Cone beam computed tomographies were performed with the standard "full dose" protocol supplied by the linac vendor. With sequentially lowering the dose, three-dimensional (3D) matching was performed for each without shifting the couch. The standard kV image pair protocol for each site was also used to image the phantoms. For all studies, six degrees of freedom was included in the 2D or 3D matching to the extent they could be employed. Imaging doses were determined in air at isocenter following the TG-61 formalism. RESULTS: Cone beam computed tomography dose was reduced by 81-98% of the standard CBCT protocol to nearly that of the standard kV image pair dose for each site. Relative to the standard CBCT shift values, translational shifts were within 0.3 and 1.6 mm for all sites, for the reduced dose CBCT and kV image pair, respectively. Rotational shifts were within 0.2 degree and 0.7 degrees for all sites, for the reduced dose CBCTs and kV image pair, respectively. CONCLUSION: For bony anatomy-based image guidance, CBCT dose can be reduced to a value similar to that of a kV image pair with similar or better patient positioning accuracy than kV image pair alignment. Where rotations are important to correct, CBCT will be superior to orthogonal kV imaging without significantly increased imaging dose. This is especially important for image guidance for pediatric patient treatments.
Authors: Sua Yoo; Daniel Grimm; Ron Zhu; Paul Jursinic; Francisco Lopez; Jason Rownd; Michael Gillin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Doug Moseley; Elizabeth White; Michael Sharpe; Tom Purdie; David A Jaffray Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Bryan Bednarz; Rebecca M Howell; Larry Dauer; David Followill; Eric Klein; Harald Paganetti; Brian Wang; Cheng-Shie Wuu; X George Xu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-08-20 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Clayton B Hess; Holly M Thompson; Stanley H Benedict; J Anthony Seibert; Kenneth Wong; Andrew T Vaughan; Allen M Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Avani D Rao; Junghoon Lee; Wei Fu; Sarah Nicholas; Sara R Alcorn; Joseph Moore; Matthew Ladra; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Steven Bartolac; Stephanie A Terezakis Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-01-23
Authors: Chia-Ho Hua; Tamara Z Vern-Gross; Clayton B Hess; Arthur J Olch; Parham Alaei; Vythialingam Sathiaseelan; Jun Deng; Kenneth Ulin; Fran Laurie; Mahesh Gopalakrishnan; Natia Esiashvili; Suzanne L Wolden; Matthew J Krasin; Thomas E Merchant; Sarah S Donaldson; Thomas J FitzGerald; Louis S Constine; David C Hodgson; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Anita Mahajan; Nadia N Laack; Karen J Marcus; Paige A Taylor; Verity A Ahern; David S Followill; Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; John C Breneman; John A Kalapurakal Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2020-08-09 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Guang Li; T Jonathan Yang; Hugo Furtado; Wolfgang Birkfellner; Åse Ballangrud; Simon N Powell; James Mechalakos Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-09-15
Authors: Sara R Alcorn; Xian Chiong Zhou; Casey Bojechko; Rodrigo A Rubo; Michael J Chen; Karin Dieckmann; Ralph P Ermoian; Eric C Ford; Daria Kobyzeva; Shannon M MacDonald; Todd R McNutt; Alexey Nechesnyuk; Kristina Nilsson; Hakan Sjostrand; Koren S Smith; Markus Stock; Erik J Tryggestad; Rosangela C Villar; Brian A Winey; Stephanie A Terezakis Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020 Jan-Dec