PURPOSE: To evaluate the Siemens solution generating Synthetic computed tomography (sCT) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only radiotherapy (RT). METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted on 47 patients treated with external beam RT for brain or prostate cancer who underwent both MRI and CT for treatment planning. sCT images were generated from MRI using automatic bulk densities segmentation. The geometric accuracy of the sCT was assessed by comparing the Hounsfield Units (HU) difference between sCT and CT for bone structures, soft-tissue, and full body contour. VMAT plans were computed on the CT for treatment preparation and then copied and recalculated with the same monitor units on the sCT using the AcurosXB algorithm. A 1%-1mm gamma analysis was performed and DVH metrics for the Planning Target Volume (PTV) like the Dmean and the D98% were compared. In addition, we evaluate the usability of sCT for daily position verification with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for 14 prostate patients by comparing sCT/CBCT registration results to CT/CBCT. RESULTS: Mean HU differences were small except for the skull (207 HU) and right femoral head of four patients where significant aberrations were found. The mean gamma pass rate was 73.2% for the brain and 84.7% for the prostate and Dmean were smaller than 0.5%. Large differences for the D98% of the prostate group could be correlated to low Dice index of the PTV. The mean difference of translations and rotations were inferior to 3.5 mm and 0.2° in all directions with a major difference in the anterior-posterior direction. CONCLUSION: The performances of the software were shown to be similar to other sCT generation algorithms in terms of HU difference, dose comparison and daily image localization.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the Siemens solution generating Synthetic computed tomography (sCT) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only radiotherapy (RT). METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted on 47 patients treated with external beam RT for brain or prostate cancer who underwent both MRI and CT for treatment planning. sCT images were generated from MRI using automatic bulk densities segmentation. The geometric accuracy of the sCT was assessed by comparing the Hounsfield Units (HU) difference between sCT and CT for bone structures, soft-tissue, and full body contour. VMAT plans were computed on the CT for treatment preparation and then copied and recalculated with the same monitor units on the sCT using the AcurosXB algorithm. A 1%-1mm gamma analysis was performed and DVH metrics for the Planning Target Volume (PTV) like the Dmean and the D98% were compared. In addition, we evaluate the usability of sCT for daily position verification with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for 14 prostate patients by comparing sCT/CBCT registration results to CT/CBCT. RESULTS: Mean HU differences were small except for the skull (207 HU) and right femoral head of four patients where significant aberrations were found. The mean gamma pass rate was 73.2% for the brain and 84.7% for the prostate and Dmean were smaller than 0.5%. Large differences for the D98% of the prostate group could be correlated to low Dice index of the PTV. The mean difference of translations and rotations were inferior to 3.5 mm and 0.2° in all directions with a major difference in the anterior-posterior direction. CONCLUSION: The performances of the software were shown to be similar to other sCT generation algorithms in terms of HU difference, dose comparison and daily image localization.
Authors: Minna Lerner; Joakim Medin; Christian Jamtheim Gustafsson; Sara Alkner; Lars E Olsson Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Laura M O'Connor; Kate Skehan; Jae H Choi; John Simpson; Jarad Martin; Helen Warren-Forward; Jason Dowling; Peter Greer Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-10-16
Authors: Jacob S Buatti; Kyle J Gallagher; Isaac Bailey; Thomas Griglock; Malcolm Heard Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 2.243