1
|
Pettersson E, Thilander-Klang A, Bäck A. Prediction of proton stopping power ratios using dual-energy CT basis material decomposition. Med Phys 2024; 51:881-897. [PMID: 38194501 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16929] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2023] [Revised: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/11/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton radiotherapy treatment plans are currently restricted by the range uncertainties originating from the stopping power ratio (SPR) prediction based on single-energy computed tomography (SECT). Various studies have shown that multi-energy CT (MECT) can reduce the range uncertainties due to medical implant materials and age-related variations in tissue composition. None of these has directly applied the basis material density (MD) images produced by projection-based MECT systems for SPR prediction. PURPOSE To present and evaluate a novel proton SPR prediction method based on MD images from dual-energy CT (DECT), which could reduce the range uncertainties currently associated with proton radiotherapy. METHODS A theoretical basis material decomposition into water and iodine material densities was performed for various pediatric and adult human reference tissues, as well as other non-tissue materials, by minimizing the root-mean-square relative attenuation error in the energy interval from 40 to 140 keV. A model (here called MD-SPR) mapping predicted MDs to theoretically calculated reference SPRs was created with locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) data-fitting. The goodness of fit of the MD-SPR model was evaluated for the included reference tissues. MD images of two electron density phantoms, combined to form a head- and an abdomen-sized phantom setup, were acquired with a clinical projection-based fast-kV switching DECT scanner. The MD images were compared to the theoretically predicted MDs of the tissue surrogates and other non-tissue materials in the phantoms, as well as used for input to the MD-SPR model for generation of SPR images. The SPR images were subsequently compared to theoretical reference SPRs of the materials in the phantoms, as well as to SPR images from a commercial algorithm (DirectSPR, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) using image-based consecutive scan DECT for the same phantom setups. RESULTS The predicted SPRs of the tissue surrogates were similar for MD-SPR and DirectSPR, where the adipose and bone tissue surrogates were within 1% difference to the reference SPRs, while other non-adipose soft tissue surrogates (breast, brain, liver, muscle) were all underestimated by between -0.7% and -1.8%. The SPRs of the non-tissue materials (polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), graphite and Teflon) were within 2.8% for MD-SPR images, compared to 6.8% for DirectSPR. CONCLUSIONS The MD-SPR model performed similar compared to other published methods for the human reference tissues. The SPR prediction for tissue surrogates was similar to DirectSPR and showed potential to improve SPR prediction for non-tissue materials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erik Pettersson
- Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Therapeutic Radiation Physics, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Anne Thilander-Klang
- Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Diagnostic Radiation Physics, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Anna Bäck
- Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Therapeutic Radiation Physics, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chacko MS, Wu D, Grewal HS, Sonnad JR. Impact of beam-hardening corrections on proton relative stopping power estimates from single- and dual-energy CT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2022; 23:e13711. [PMID: 35816460 PMCID: PMC9512361 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2022] [Revised: 05/19/2022] [Accepted: 06/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
A major contributing factor to proton range uncertainty is the conversion of computed tomography (CT) Hounsfield units (HU) to proton relative stopping power (RSP). This uncertainty is heightened in the presence of X-ray beam-hardening artifact (BHA), which has two manifestations: cupping and streaking, especially in and near bone tissue. This uncertainty can affect the accuracy of proton RSP calculation for treatment planning in proton radiotherapy. Dual-energy CT (DECT) and iterative beam-hardening correction (iBHC) both show promise in mitigating CT BHA. This present work attempts to analyze the relative robustness of iBHC and DECT techniques on both manifestations of BHA. The stoichiometric method for HU to RSP conversion was used for single-energy CT (SECT) and DECT-based monochromatic techniques using a tissue substitute phantom. Cupping BHA was simulated by measuring the HU of a bone substitute plug in wax/3D-printed phantoms of increasing size. Streaking BHA was simulated by placing a solid water plug between two bone plugs in a wax phantom. Finally, the effect of varying calibration phantom size on RSP was calculated in an anthropomorphic head phantom. The RSP decreased -0.002 cm-1 as phantom size increased for SECT but remained largely constant when iBHC applied or with DECT techniques. The RSP varied a maximum of 2.60% in the presence of streaking BHA in SECT but was reduced to 1.40% with iBHC. For DECT techniques, the maximum difference was 2.40%, reduced to 0.6% with iBHC. Comparing calibration phantoms of 20- and 33-cm diameter, maximum voxel differences of 5 mm in the water-equivalent thickness were observed in the skull but reduced to 1.3 mm with iBHC. The DECT techniques excelled in mitigating cupping BHA, but streaking BHA still could be observed. The use of iBHC reduced RSP variation with BHA in both SECT and DECT techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael S. Chacko
- Department of Medical Physics and DosimetryOklahoma Proton CenterOklahoma CityOklahomaUSA,Department of Radiological SciencesUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences CenterOklahoma CityOklahomaUSA
| | - Dee Wu
- Department of Radiological SciencesUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences CenterOklahoma CityOklahomaUSA
| | - Hardev S. Grewal
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleFloridaUSA,Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Florida Health Proton Therapy InstituteJacksonvilleFloridaUSA
| | - Jagadeesh R. Sonnad
- Department of Radiological SciencesUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences CenterOklahoma CityOklahomaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Longarino FK, Kowalewski A, Tessonnier T, Mein S, Ackermann B, Debus J, Mairani A, Stiller W. Potential of a Second-Generation Dual-Layer Spectral CT for Dose Calculation in Particle Therapy Treatment Planning. Front Oncol 2022; 12:853495. [PMID: 35530308 PMCID: PMC9069208 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.853495] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
In particle therapy treatment planning, dose calculation is conducted using patient-specific maps of tissue ion stopping power ratio (SPR) to predict beam ranges. Improving patient-specific SPR prediction is therefore essential for accurate dose calculation. In this study, we investigated the use of the Spectral CT 7500, a second-generation dual-layer spectral computed tomography (DLCT) system, as an alternative to conventional single-energy CT (SECT) for patient-specific SPR prediction. This dual-energy CT (DECT)-based method allows for the direct prediction of SPR from quantitative measurements of relative electron density and effective atomic number using the Bethe equation, whereas the conventional SECT-based method consists of indirect image data-based prediction through the conversion of calibrated CT numbers to SPR. The performance of the Spectral CT 7500 in particle therapy treatment planning was characterized by conducting a thorough analysis of its SPR prediction accuracy for both tissue-equivalent materials and common non-tissue implant materials. In both instances, DLCT was found to reduce uncertainty in SPR predictions compared to SECT. Mean deviations of 0.7% and 1.6% from measured SPR values were found for DLCT- and SECT-based predictions, respectively, in tissue-equivalent materials. Furthermore, end-to-end analyses of DLCT-based treatment planning were performed for proton, helium, and carbon ion therapies with anthropomorphic head and pelvic phantoms. 3D gamma analysis was performed with ionization chamber array measurements as the reference. DLCT-predicted dose distributions revealed higher passing rates compared to SECT-predicted dose distributions. In the DLCT-based treatment plans, measured distal-edge evaluation layers were within 1 mm of their predicted positions, demonstrating the accuracy of DLCT-based particle range prediction. This study demonstrated that the use of the Spectral CT 7500 in particle therapy treatment planning may lead to better agreement between planned and delivered dose compared to current clinical SECT systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Friderike K Longarino
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Antonia Kowalewski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
| | | | - Stewart Mein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Jürgen Debus
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Core Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Medical Physics, National Center of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Wolfram Stiller
- Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|