Quantitative comparison of dose distribution in radiotherapy plans using 2D gamma maps and X-ray computed tomography

Dosimetric impact of CT metal artifact reduction for spinal implants in stereotactic body radiotherapy planning

Background

Metal artifacts due to spinal implants may affect the accuracy of dose calculation for radiotherapy. However, the dosimetric impact of metal artifact reduction (MAR) for spinal implants in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric impact of MAR in spinal SBRT planning with three clinically common dose calculation algorithms.

Methods

Gammex phantom and 10 patients' computed tomography (CT) images were studied to investigate the effects of titanium implants. A commercial orthopedic MAR algorithm was employed to reduce artifacts. Dose calculations for SBRT were conducted on both artifact-corrected and uncorrected images using three commercial algorithms [analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB (AXB), and Monte Carlo (MC)]. Dose discrepancies between artifact-corrected and uncorrected cases were appraised using a dose-volume histogram (DVH) and 3-dimensional (3D) gamma analysis with different distance to agreement (DTA) and dose difference criteria. The gamma agreement index (GAI) was denoted as G(∆D, DTA). Statistical analysis of t-test was utilized to evaluate the dose differences of different algorithms.

Results

The phantom study demonstrated that titanium metal artifacts can be effectively reduced. The patient cases study showed that dose differences between the artifact-corrected and uncorrected datasets were small evaluated by gamma index and DVH. Gamma analysis found that even the strict criterion local G(1,1) had average values ≥93.9% for the three algorithms. For all DVH metrics, average differences did not exceed 0.7% in planning target volume (PTV) and 2.1% in planning risk volume of spinal cord (PRV-SC). Statistical analysis showed that the observed dose differences of MC method were significantly larger than those of AAA (P<0.01 for D98% of PTV and P<0.001 for D0.1cc of spinal cord) and AXB methods (P<0.001 for D98% and P<0.0001 for D0.1cc).

Conclusions

Dosimetric impact of artifacts caused by titanium implants is not significant in spinal SBRT planning, which indicates that dose calculation algorithms might not be very sensitive to CT number variation caused by titanium inserts.

Agreement between gamma passing rates using computed tomography in radiotherapy and secondary cancer risk prediction from more advanced dose calculated models

BACKGROUND

During the past decades, in radiotherapy, the dose distributions were calculated using density correction methods with pencil beam as type 'a' algorithm. The objectives of this study are to assess and evaluate the impact of dose distribution shift on the predicted secondary cancer risk (SCR), using modern advanced dose calculation algorithms, point kernel, as type 'b', which consider change in lateral electrons transport.

METHODS

Clinical examples of pediatric cranio-spinal irradiation patients were evaluated. For each case, two radiotherapy treatment plans with were generated using the same prescribed dose to the target resulting in different number of monitor units (MUs) per field. The dose distributions were calculated, respectively, using both algorithms types. A gamma index (γ) analysis was used to compare dose distribution in the lung. The organ equivalent dose (OED) has been calculated with three different models, the linear, the linear-exponential and the plateau dose response curves. The excess absolute risk ratio (EAR) was also evaluated as (EAR = OED _{type 'b'} / OED _{type 'a'}).

RESULTS

The γ analysis results indicated an acceptable dose distribution agreement of 95% with 3%/3 mm. Although, the γ-maps displayed dose displacement >1 mm around the healthy lungs. Compared to type 'a', the OED values from type 'b' dose distributions' were about 8% to 16% higher, leading to an EAR ratio >1, ranged from 1.08 to 1.13 depending on SCR models.

CONCLUSIONS

The shift of dose calculation in radiotherapy, according to the algorithm, can significantly influence the SCR prediction and the plan optimization, since OEDs are calculated from DVH for a specific treatment. The agreement between dose distribution and SCR prediction depends on dose response models and epidemiological data. In addition, the γ passing rates of 3%/3 mm does not translate the difference, up to 15%, in the predictions of SCR resulting from alternative algorithms. Considering that modern algorithms are more accurate, showing more precisely the dose distributions, but that the prediction of absolute SCR is still very imprecise, only the EAR ratio could be used to rank radiotherapy plans.