Open AccessUsing gamma index to flag changes in anatomy during image‐guided radiation therapy of head and neck cancer
Author(s) -
Schaly Bryan,
Kempe Jeff,
Venkatesan Varagur,
Mitchell Sylvia,
Battista Jerry J
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/acm2.12180
Subject(s) - medicine , percentile , wilcoxon signed rank test , hounsfield scale , head and neck cancer , cone beam computed tomography , nuclear medicine , radiation therapy , receiver operating characteristic , histogram , radiology , computed tomography , mathematics , statistics , artificial intelligence , computer science , mann–whitney u test , image (mathematics)
During radiation therapy of head and neck cancer, the decision to consider replanning a treatment because of anatomical changes has significant resource implications. We developed an algorithm that compares cone‐beam computed tomography ( CBCT ) image pairs and provides an automatic alert as to when remedial action may be required. Retrospective CBCT data from ten head and neck cancer patients that were replanned during their treatment was used to train the algorithm on when to recommend a repeat CT simulation (re‐ CT ). An additional 20 patients (replanned and not replanned) were used to validate the predictive power of the algorithm. CBCT images were compared in 3D using the gamma index, combining Hounsfield Unit ( HU ) difference with distance‐to‐agreement ( DTA ), where the CBCT study acquired on the first fraction is used as the reference. We defined the match quality parameter ( MQP x ) as a difference between the x th percentiles of the failed‐pixel histograms calculated from the reference gamma comparison and subsequent comparisons, where the reference gamma comparison is taken from the first two CBCT images acquired during treatment. The decision to consider re‐ CT was based on three consecutive MQP values being less than or equal to a threshold value, such that re‐ CT recommendations were within ±3 fractions of the actual re‐ CT order date for the training cases. Receiver‐operator characteristic analysis showed that the best trade‐off in sensitivity and specificity was achieved using gamma criteria of 3 mm DTA and 30 HU difference, and the 80 th percentile of the failed‐pixel histogram. A sensitivity of 82% and 100% was achieved in the training and validation cases, respectively, with a false positive rate of ~30%. We have demonstrated that gamma analysis of CBCT ‐acquired anatomy can be used to flag patients for possible replanning in a manner consistent with local clinical practice guidelines.