1
|
Zhang Y, Jiang Z, Zhang Y, Ren L. A review on 4D cone-beam CT (4D-CBCT) in radiation therapy: Technical advances and clinical applications. Med Phys 2024. [PMID: 38922912 DOI: 10.1002/mp.17269] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2023] [Revised: 03/05/2024] [Accepted: 06/01/2024] [Indexed: 06/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Cone-beam CT (CBCT) is the most commonly used onboard imaging technique for target localization in radiation therapy. Conventional 3D CBCT acquires x-ray cone-beam projections at multiple angles around the patient to reconstruct 3D images of the patient in the treatment room. However, despite its wide usage, 3D CBCT is limited in imaging disease sites affected by respiratory motions or other dynamic changes within the body, as it lacks time-resolved information. To overcome this limitation, 4D-CBCT was developed to incorporate a time dimension in the imaging to account for the patient's motion during the acquisitions. For example, respiration-correlated 4D-CBCT divides the breathing cycles into different phase bins and reconstructs 3D images for each phase bin, ultimately generating a complete set of 4D images. 4D-CBCT is valuable for localizing tumors in the thoracic and abdominal regions where the localization accuracy is affected by respiratory motions. This is especially important for hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), which delivers much higher fractional doses in fewer fractions than conventional fractionated treatments. Nonetheless, 4D-CBCT does face certain limitations, including long scanning times, high imaging doses, and compromised image quality due to the necessity of acquiring sufficient x-ray projections for each respiratory phase. In order to address these challenges, numerous methods have been developed to achieve fast, low-dose, and high-quality 4D-CBCT. This paper aims to review the technical developments surrounding 4D-CBCT comprehensively. It will explore conventional algorithms and recent deep learning-based approaches, delving into their capabilities and limitations. Additionally, the paper will discuss the potential clinical applications of 4D-CBCT and outline a future roadmap, highlighting areas for further research and development. Through this exploration, the readers will better understand 4D-CBCT's capabilities and potential to enhance radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yawei Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Zhuoran Jiang
- Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - You Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Lei Ren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Taasti VT, Hattu D, Peeters S, van der Salm A, van Loon J, de Ruysscher D, Nilsson R, Andersson S, Engwall E, Unipan M, Canters R. Clinical evaluation of synthetic computed tomography methods in adaptive proton therapy of lung cancer patients. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023; 27:100459. [PMID: 37397874 PMCID: PMC10314284 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2023] [Revised: 06/13/2023] [Accepted: 06/13/2023] [Indexed: 07/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Efficient workflows for adaptive proton therapy are of high importance. This study evaluated the possibility to replace repeat-CTs (reCTs) with synthetic CTs (sCTs), created based on cone-beam CTs (CBCTs), for flagging the need of plan adaptations in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment of lung cancer patients. Materials and methods Forty-two IMPT patients were retrospectively included. For each patient, one CBCT and a same-day reCT were included. Two commercial sCT methods were applied; one based on CBCT number correction (Cor-sCT), and one based on deformable image registration (DIR-sCT). The clinical reCT workflow (deformable contour propagation and robust dose re-computation) was performed on the reCT as well as the two sCTs. The deformed target contours on the reCT/sCTs were checked by radiation oncologists and edited if needed. A dose-volume-histogram triggered plan adaptation method was compared between the reCT and the sCTs; patients needing a plan adaptation on the reCT but not on the sCT were denoted false negatives. As secondary evaluation, dose-volume-histogram comparison and gamma analysis (2%/2mm) were performed between the reCT and sCTs. Results There were five false negatives, two for Cor-sCT and three for DIR-sCT. However, three of these were only minor, and one was caused by tumour position differences between the reCT and CBCT and not by sCT quality issues. An average gamma pass rate of 93% was obtained for both sCT methods. Conclusion Both sCT methods were judged to be of clinical quality and valuable for reducing the amount of reCT acquisitions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vicki Trier Taasti
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Djoya Hattu
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Stephanie Peeters
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Anke van der Salm
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Judith van Loon
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Mirko Unipan
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Richard Canters
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Thummerer A, Seller Oria C, Zaffino P, Visser S, Meijers A, Guterres Marmitt G, Wijsman R, Seco J, Langendijk JA, Knopf AC, Spadea MF, Both S. Deep learning-based 4D-synthetic CTs from sparse-view CBCTs for dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy. Med Phys 2022; 49:6824-6839. [PMID: 35982630 PMCID: PMC10087352 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2022] [Revised: 07/20/2022] [Accepted: 08/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Time-resolved 4D cone beam-computed tomography (4D-CBCT) allows a daily assessment of patient anatomy and respiratory motion. However, 4D-CBCTs suffer from imaging artifacts that affect the CT number accuracy and prevent accurate proton dose calculations. Deep learning can be used to correct CT numbers and generate synthetic CTs (sCTs) that can enable CBCT-based proton dose calculations. PURPOSE In this work, sparse view 4D-CBCTs were converted into 4D-sCT utilizing a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN). 4D-sCTs were evaluated in terms of image quality and dosimetric accuracy to determine if accurate proton dose calculations for adaptive proton therapy workflows of lung cancer patients are feasible. METHODS A dataset of 45 thoracic cancer patients was utilized to train and evaluate a DCNN to generate 4D-sCTs, based on sparse view 4D-CBCTs reconstructed from projections acquired with a 3D acquisition protocol. Mean absolute error (MAE) and mean error were used as metrics to evaluate the image quality of single phases and average 4D-sCTs against 4D-CTs acquired on the same day. The dosimetric accuracy was checked globally (gamma analysis) and locally for target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs) (lung, heart, and esophagus). Furthermore, 4D-sCTs were also compared to 3D-sCTs. To evaluate CT number accuracy, proton radiography simulations in 4D-sCT and 4D-CTs were compared in terms of range errors. The clinical suitability of 4D-sCTs was demonstrated by performing a 4D dose reconstruction using patient specific treatment delivery log files and breathing signals. RESULTS 4D-sCTs resulted in average MAEs of 48.1 ± 6.5 HU (single phase) and 37.7 ± 6.2 HU (average). The global dosimetric evaluation showed gamma pass ratios of 92.3% ± 3.2% (single phase) and 94.4% ± 2.1% (average). The clinical target volume showed high agreement in D98 between 4D-CT and 4D-sCT, with differences below 2.4% for all patients. Larger dose differences were observed in mean doses of OARs (up to 8.4%). The comparison with 3D-sCTs showed no substantial image quality and dosimetric differences for the 4D-sCT average. Individual 4D-sCT phases showed slightly lower dosimetric accuracy. The range error evaluation revealed that lung tissues cause range errors about three times higher than the other tissues. CONCLUSION In this study, we have investigated the accuracy of deep learning-based 4D-sCTs for daily dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy. Despite image quality differences between 4D-sCTs and 3D-sCTs, comparable dosimetric accuracy was observed globally and locally. Further improvement of 3D and 4D lung sCTs could be achieved by increasing CT number accuracy in lung tissues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adrian Thummerer
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Carmen Seller Oria
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Paolo Zaffino
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
| | - Sabine Visser
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Arturs Meijers
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.,Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Gabriel Guterres Marmitt
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Robin Wijsman
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Joao Seco
- Department of Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Johannes Albertus Langendijk
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Antje Christin Knopf
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.,Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Maria Francesca Spadea
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
| | - Stefan Both
- Department, of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pakela JM, Knopf A, Dong L, Rucinski A, Zou W. Management of Motion and Anatomical Variations in Charged Particle Therapy: Past, Present, and Into the Future. Front Oncol 2022; 12:806153. [PMID: 35356213 PMCID: PMC8959592 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.806153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2021] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The major aim of radiation therapy is to provide curative or palliative treatment to cancerous malignancies while minimizing damage to healthy tissues. Charged particle radiotherapy utilizing carbon ions or protons is uniquely suited for this task due to its ability to achieve highly conformal dose distributions around the tumor volume. For these treatment modalities, uncertainties in the localization of patient anatomy due to inter- and intra-fractional motion present a heightened risk of undesired dose delivery. A diverse range of mitigation strategies have been developed and clinically implemented in various disease sites to monitor and correct for patient motion, but much work remains. This review provides an overview of current clinical practices for inter and intra-fractional motion management in charged particle therapy, including motion control, current imaging and motion tracking modalities, as well as treatment planning and delivery techniques. We also cover progress to date on emerging technologies including particle-based radiography imaging, novel treatment delivery methods such as tumor tracking and FLASH, and artificial intelligence and discuss their potential impact towards improving or increasing the challenge of motion mitigation in charged particle therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia M Pakela
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Antje Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.,Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Wei Zou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Knopf AC, Czerska K, Fracchiolla F, Graeff C, Molinelli S, Rinaldi I, Rucincki A, Sterpin E, Stützer K, Trnkova P, Zhang Y, Chang JY, Giap H, Liu W, Schild SE, Simone CB, Lomax AJ, Meijers A. Clinical necessity of multi-image based (4DMIB) optimization for targets affected by respiratory motion and treated with scanned particle therapy – a comprehensive review. Radiother Oncol 2022; 169:77-85. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.02.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2021] [Revised: 01/31/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
|
6
|
Czerska K, Emert F, Kopec R, Langen K, McClelland JR, Meijers A, Miyamoto N, Riboldi M, Shimizu S, Terunuma T, Zou W, Knopf A, Rucinski A. Clinical practice vs. state-of-the-art research and future visions: Report on the 4D treatment planning workshop for particle therapy - Edition 2018 and 2019. Phys Med 2021; 82:54-63. [PMID: 33588228 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.12.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The 4D Treatment Planning Workshop for Particle Therapy, a workshop dedicated to the treatment of moving targets with scanned particle beams, started in 2009 and since then has been organized annually. The mission of the workshop is to create an informal ground for clinical medical physicists, medical physics researchers and medical doctors interested in the development of the 4D technology, protocols and their translation into clinical practice. The 10th and 11th editions of the workshop took place in Sapporo, Japan in 2018 and Krakow, Poland in 2019, respectively. This review report from the Sapporo and Krakow workshops is structured in two parts, according to the workshop programs. The first part comprises clinicians and physicists review of the status of 4D clinical implementations. Corresponding talks were given by speakers from five centers around the world: Maastro Clinic (The Netherlands), University Medical Center Groningen (The Netherlands), MD Anderson Cancer Center (United States), University of Pennsylvania (United States) and The Proton Beam Therapy Center of Hokkaido University Hospital (Japan). The second part is dedicated to novelties in 4D research, i.e. motion modelling, artificial intelligence and new technologies which are currently being investigated in the radiotherapy field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katarzyna Czerska
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland.
| | - Frank Emert
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
| | - Renata Kopec
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland
| | - Katja Langen
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jamie R McClelland
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Arturs Meijers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Naoki Miyamoto
- Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan; Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Marco Riboldi
- Department of Medical Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany
| | - Shinichi Shimizu
- Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan; Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Toshiyuki Terunuma
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Japan; Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Japan
| | - Wei Zou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Antje Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland
| |
Collapse
|