Open AccessFeasibility of CBCT ‐based dose with a patient‐specific stepwise HU ‐to‐density curve to determine time of replanning
Author(s) -
Chen Shifeng,
Le Quynh,
Mutaf Yildirim,
Lu Wei,
Nichols Elizabeth M.,
Yi Byong Yong,
Leven Tish,
Prado Karl L.,
D'Souza Warren D.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.12127
Subject(s) - hounsfield scale , nuclear medicine , medicine , cone beam computed tomography , radiation therapy , cone beam ct , dosimetry , radiation treatment planning , computed tomography , radiology
Purpose (a) To investigate the accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography ( CBCT )–derived dose distributions relative to fanbeam–based simulation CT ‐derived dose distributions; and (b) to study the feasibility of CBCT dosimetry for guiding the appropriateness of replanning. Methods and materials Image data corresponding to 40 patients (10 head and neck [ HN ], 10 lung, 10 pancreas, 10 pelvis) who underwent radiation therapy were randomly selected. Each patient had both intensity‐modulated radiation therapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy plans; these 80 plans were subsequently recomputed on the CBCT images using a patient‐specific stepwise curve (Hounsfield units‐to‐density). Planning target volumes ( PTV s; D98%, D95%, D2%), mean dose, and V95% were compared between simulation‐ CT –derived treatment plans and CBCT ‐based plans. Gamma analyses were performed using criterion of 3%/3 mm for three dose zones (>90%, 70%~90%, and 30%~70% of maximum dose). CBCT ‐derived doses were then used to evaluate the appropriateness of replanning decisions in 12 additional HN patients whose plans were previously revised during radiation therapy because of anatomic changes; replanning in these cases was guided by the conventional observed source‐to‐skin‐distance change‐derived approach. Results For all disease sites, the difference in PTV mean dose was 0.1% ± 1.1%, D2% was 0.7% ± 0.1%, D95% was 0.2% ± 1.1%, D98% was 0.2% ± 1.0%, and V95% was 0.3% ± 0.8%; For 3D dose comparison, 99.0% ± 1.9%, 97.6% ± 4.4%, and 95.3% ± 6.0% of points passed the 3%/3 mm criterion of gamma analysis in high‐, medium‐, and low‐dose zones, respectively. The CBCT images achieved comparable dose distributions. In the 12 previously replanned 12 HN patients, CBCT ‐based dose predicted well changes in PTV D2% (Pearson linear correlation coefficient = 0.93; P < 0.001). If 3% of change is used as the replanning criteria, 7/12 patients could avoid replanning. Conclusions CBCT ‐based dose calculations produced accuracy comparable to that of simulation CT . CBCT ‐based dosimetry can guide the decision to replan during the course of treatment.