Evaluation of target localization accuracy for image-guided radiation therapy by 3D and 4D cone-beam CT in the presence of respiratory motion: a phantom study

Validation of four-dimensional computed tomography without external reference respiratory signals for radiation treatment planning of lung tumors

Deviceless four-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) allows the acquisition of respiratory signals from six features without requiring an external device for cine CT processing. This method has been recently introduced in radiation treatment planning of lung tumors. To validate deviceless 4D CT, it must be compared with conventional 4D CT, which requires an external monitoring device. We compared the two methods using a multicell 4D phantom that simulates patient's movement during respiration regarding the target volume (TV), target position (TP), and internal TV for lung tumor radiation therapy. We retrospectively obtained images of 10 patients who underwent radiation treatment planning of lung tumors and compared the two methods, as in the phantom study. For the phantom study, the mean TV, root mean square errors of the TP, and mean internal TV differences between the two methods ranged from -4.5% to 1.2%, 0.7 to 2.6 mm, and -1.1% to 3.4%, respectively. The corresponding results of the clinical study ranged from -1.5% to 14.9%, 0.1 to 5.9 mm, and -9.7% to 10.1%, respectively. The results of deviceless 4D CT for the clinical study were consistent with those of conventional 4D CT, except for target movements with high excursions. Therefore, deviceless 4D CT can be an alternative to conventional 4D CT for radiation treatment planning of lung tumors.

Technical Note: Comparison of the internal target volume (ITV) contours and dose calculations on 4DCT, average CBCT, and 4DCBCT imaging for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)

PURPOSE

To investigate the differences between internal target volumes (ITVs) contoured on the simulation 4DCT and daily 4DCBCT images for lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and determine the dose delivered on 4D planning technique.

METHODS

For nine patients, 4DCBCTs were acquired before each fraction to assess tumor motion. An ITV was contoured on each phase of the 4DCBCT and a union of the 10 ITVs was used to create a composite ITV. Another ITV was drawn on the average 3DCBCT (avgCBCT) to compare with current clinical practice. The Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, and center of mass (COM) were averaged over four fractions to compare the ITVs contoured on the 4DCT, avgCBCT, and 4DCBCT for each patient. Planning was done on the average CT, and using the online registration, plans were calculated on each phase of the 4DCBCT and on the avgCBCT. Plan dose calculations were tested by measuring ion chamber dose in the CIRS lung phantom.

RESULTS

The Dice coefficients were similar for all three comparisons: avgCBCT-to-4DCBCT (0.7 ± 0.1), 4DCT-to-avgCBCT (0.7 ± 0.1), and 4DCT-to-4DCBCT (0.7 ± 0.1); while the mean COM differences were also comparable (2.6 ± 2.2mm, 2.3 ± 1.4mm, and 3.1 ± 1.1mm, respectively). The Hausdorff distances for the comparisons with 4DCBCT (8.2 ± 2.9mm and 8.1 ± 3.2mm) were larger than the comparison without (6.5 ± 2.5mm). The differences in ITV D95% between the treatment plan and avgCBCT calculations were 4.3 ± 3.0% and -0.5 ± 4.6%, between treatment plan and 4DCBCT plans, respectively, while the ITV V100% coverages were 99.0 ± 1.9% and 93.1 ± 8.0% for avgCBCT and 4DCBCT, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is great potential for 4DCBCT to evaluate the extent of tumor motion before treatment, but image quality challenges the clinician to consistently delineate lung target volumes.