No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Proton dose calculation on scatter-corrected CBCT image: Feasibility study for adaptive proton therapy
2.X. Li, E. Quan, Y. Li, X. Pan, Y. Zhou, X. Wang, W. Du, R. Kudchadker, J. Johnson, and D. Kuban, “A fully automated method for CT-on-rails-guided online adaptive planning for prostate cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 86, 835–841 (2013).
3.K. M. Langen, Y. Zhang, R. D. Andrews, M. E. Hurley, S. L. Meeks, D. O. Poole, T. R. Willoughby, and P. A. Kupelian, “Initial experience with megavoltage (MV) CT guidance for daily prostate alignments,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 62, 1517–1524 (2005).
4.M. A. Hawkins, C. Brooks, V. N. Hansen, A. Aitken, and D. M. Tait, “Cone beam computed tomography–derived adaptive radiotherapy for radical treatment of esophageal cancer,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 77, 378–383 (2010).
5.S. Yoo and F. Yin, “Dosimetric feasibility of cone-beam CT-based treatment planning compared to CT-based treatment planning,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 66, 1553–1561 (2006).
6.J. Star-Lack, M. Sun, A. Kaestner, R. Hassanein, G. Virshup, T. Berkus, and M. Oelhafen, “Efficient scatter correction using asymmetric kernels,” Proc. SPIE 7258, 72581Z (2009).
9.J. Li, W. Yao, Y. Xiao, and Y. Yu, “Feasibility of improving cone-beam CT number consistency using a scatter correction algorithm,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 14, 167–176 (2013).
10.M. Zhang, D. C. Westerly, and T. R. Mackie, “Introducing an on-line adaptive procedure for prostate image guided intensity modulate proton therapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 4947–4965 (2011).
11.E. J. Koay, D. Lege, R. Mohan, R. Komaki, J. D. Cox, and J. Y. Chang, “Adaptive/nonadaptive proton radiation planning and outcomes in a phase II trial for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 84, 1093–1100 (2012).
12.G. Landry, G. Dedes, C. Zollner, J. Handrack, G. Janssens, J. Orban de Xivry, M. Reiner, C. Paganelli, M. Riboldi, F. Kamp, M. Sohn, J. J. Wilkens, G. Baroni, C. Belka, and K. Parodi, “Phantom based evaluation of CT to CBCT image registration for proton therapy dose recalculation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 60, 595–613 (2015).
13.G. Landry, R. Nijhuis, G. Dedes, J. Handrack, C. Thieke, G. Janssens, J. Orban de Xivry, M. Reiner, F. Kamp, J. J. Wilkens, C. Paganelli, M. Riboldi, G. Baroni, U. Ganswindt, C. Belka, and K. Parodi, “Investigating CT to CBCT image registration for head and neck proton therapy as a tool for daily dose recalculation,” Med. Phys. 42, 1354–1366 (2015).
14.L. De Marzi, C. Lesven, R. Ferrand, J. Sage, T. Boulé, and A. Mazal, “Calibration of CT Hounsfield units for proton therapy treatment planning: Use of kilovoltage and megavoltage images and comparison of parameterized methods,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 4255–4276 (2013).
15.S. Rit, M. Oliva, S. Brousmiche, R. Labarbe, D. Sarrut, and G. Sharp, “The reconstruction toolkit (RTK), an open-source cone-beam CT reconstruction toolkit based on the insight toolkit (ITK),” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 489, 012079 (2014).
16.R. Boellaard, M. van Herk, H. Uiterwaal, and B. Mijnheer, “Two-dimensional exit dosimetry using a liquid-filled electronic portal imaging device and a convolution model,” Radiother. Oncol. 44, 149–157 (1997).
17.A. Richter, Q. Hu, D. Steglich, K. Baier, J. Wilbert, M. Guckenberger, and M. Flentje, “Investigation of the usability of conebeam CT data sets for dose calculation,” Radiat. Oncol. 3, 42 (2008).
18.T. Niu, M. Sun, J. Star-Lack, H. Gao, Q. Fan, and L. Zhu, “Shading correction for on-board cone-beam CT in radiation therapy using planning MDCT images,” Med. Phys. 37, 5395–5406 (2010).
20.T. Niu, A. Al-Basheer, and L. Zhu, “Quantitative cone-beam CT imaging in radiation therapy using planning CT as a prior: First patient studies,” Med. Phys. 39, 1991–2000 (2012).
22.M. Moyers, D. Miller, J. Siebers, R. Galindo, S. Sun, M. Sardesai, and L. Chan, “Water equivalence of various materials for 155 to 250 MeV protons,” Med. Phys. 19, 829 (1992).
23.J. Phillips, G. Gueorguiev, J. A. Shackleford, C. Grassberger, S. Dowdell, H. Paganetti, and G. C. Sharp, “Computing proton dose to irregularly moving targets,” Phys. Med. Biol. 59, 4261–4273 (2014).
24.R. Zhang and W. D. Newhauser, “Calculation of water equivalent thickness of materials of arbitrary density, elemental composition and thickness in proton beam irradiation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 1383–1395 (2009).
26.L. Hong, M. Goitein, M. Bucciolini, R. Comiskey, B. Gottschalk, S. Rosenthal, C. Serago, and M. Urie, “A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations,” Phys. Med. Biol. 41, 1305–1330 (1996).
27.D. A. Low, W. B. Harms, S. Mutic, and J. A. Purdy, “A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions,” Med. Phys. 25, 656–661 (1998).
28.J. R. Sykes, D. S. Brettle, D. R. Magee, and D. I. Thwaites, “Investigation of uncertainties in image registration of cone beam CT to CT on an image-guided radiotherapy system,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 7263–7283 (2009).
29.J. Kim, S. Kumar, C. Liu, H. Zhong, D. Pradhan, M. Shah, R. Cattaneo, R. Yechieli, J. R. Robbins, M. A. Elshaikh, and I. J. Chetty, “A novel approach for establishing benchmark CBCT/CT deformable image registrations in prostate cancer radiotherapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 8077–8097 (2013).
30.B. Schaffner and E. Pedroni, “The precision of proton range calculations in proton radiotherapy treatment planning: Experimental verification of the relation between CT-HU and proton stopping power,” Phys. Med. Biol. 43, 1579–1592 (1998).
31.S. España and H. Paganetti, “The impact of uncertainties in the CT conversion algorithm when predicting proton beam ranges in patients from dose and PET-activity distributions,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 7557–7571 (2010).
33.R. E. Suri, G. Virshup, L. Zurkirchen, and W. Kaissl, “Comparison of scatter correction methods for CBCT,” Proc. SPIE 6142, 614238 (2006).
34.S. T. Schindera, I. Tock, D. Marin, R. C. Nelson, R. Raupach, M. Hagemeister, G. von Allmen, P. Vock, and Z. Szucs-Farkas, “Effect of beam hardening on arterial enhancement in thoracoabdominal CT angiography with increasing patient size: An in vitro and in vivo study,” Radiology 256, 528–535 (2010).
35.J. Hsieh, R. C. Molthen, C. A. Dawson, and R. H. Johnson, “An iterative approach to the beam hardening correction in cone beam CT,” Med. Phys. 27, 23–29 (2000).
36.X. Jia, Y. Lou, R. Li, W. Y. Song, and S. B. Jiang, “GPU-based fast cone beam CT reconstruction from undersampled and noisy projection data via total variation,” Med. Phys. 37, 1757–1760 (2010).
Article metrics loading...
To demonstrate the feasibility of proton dose calculation on scatter-corrected cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT)
images for the purpose of adaptive proton therapy.
CBCT projection images were acquired from anthropomorphic phantoms and a prostate patient using an on-board imaging system of an Elekta infinity linear accelerator. Two previously introduced techniques were used to correct the scattered x-rays in the raw projection images: uniform scatter correction (CBCT
us) and a priori CT-based scatter correction (CBCT
images were reconstructed using a standard FDK algorithm and GPU-based reconstruction toolkit. Soft tissue ROI-based HU shifting was used to improve HU accuracy of the uncorrected CBCT
images and CBCT
us, while no HU change was applied to the CBCT
ap. The degree of equivalence of the corrected CBCT
images with respect to the reference CT
ref) was evaluated by using angular profiles of water equivalent path length (WEPL) and passively scattered
proton treatment plans. The CBCT
ap was further evaluated in more realistic scenarios such as rectal filling and weight loss to assess the effect of mismatched prior information on the corrected images.
The uncorrected CBCT and CBCT
images demonstrated substantial WEPL discrepancies (7.3 ± 5.3 mm and 11.1 ± 6.6 mm, respectively) with respect to the CT
ref, while the CBCT
images showed substantially reduced WEPL errors (2.4 ± 2.0 mm). Similarly, the CBCT
ap-based treatment plans demonstrated a high pass rate (96.0% ± 2.5% in 2 mm/2% criteria) in a 3D gamma analysis.
A priori CT-based scatter correction technique was shown to be promising for adaptive proton therapy, as it achieved equivalent proton dose distributions and water equivalent path lengths compared to those of a reference CT in a selection of anthropomorphic phantoms.
Full text loading...
Most read this month