Open AccessCT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera
Author(s) -
Skinner Lawrie,
Knopp Rick,
Wang YiChun,
Dubrowski Piotr,
Bush Karl K.,
Limmer Alyssa,
Trakul Nicholas,
Million Lynn,
Marquez Carol M.,
Yu Amy S.
Publication year - 2021
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/acm2.13283
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , hounsfield scale , nuclear medicine , dosimetry , standard deviation , radiation treatment planning , body surface , radiation therapy , gamma camera , computed tomography , medicine , materials science , radiology , mathematics , geometry , statistics
Purpose Electron radiation therapy dose distributions are affected by irregular body surface contours. This study investigates the feasibility of three‐dimensional (3D) cameras to substitute for the treatment planning computerized tomography (CT) scan by capturing the body surfaces to be treated for accurate electron beam dosimetry. Methods Dosimetry was compared for six electron beam treatments to the nose, toe, eye, and scalp using full CT scan, CT scan with Hounsfield Unit (HU) overridden to water (mimic 3D camera cases), and flat‐phantom techniques. Radiation dose was prescribed to a depth on the central axis per physician’s order, and the monitor units (MUs) were calculated. The 3D camera spatial accuracy was evaluated by comparing the 3D surface of a head phantom captured by a 3D camera and that generated with the CT scan in the treatment planning system. A clinical case is presented, and MUs were calculated using the 3D camera body contour with HU overridden to water. Results Across six cases the average change in MUs between the full CT and the 3Dwater (CT scan with HU overridden to water) calculations was 1.3% with a standard deviation of 1.0%. The corresponding hotspots had a mean difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.9%. The 3D camera captured surface of a head phantom was found to have a 0.59 mm standard deviation from the surface derived from the CT scan. In‐vivo dose measurements (213 ± 8 cGy) agreed with the 3D‐camera planned dose of 209 ± 6 cGy, compared to 192 ± 6 cGy for the flat‐phantom calculation (same MUs). Conclusions Electron beam dosimetry is affected by irregular body surfaces. 3D cameras can capture irregular body contours which allow accurate dosimetry of electron beam treatment as an alternative to costly CT scans with no extra exposure to radiation. Tools and workflow for clinical implementation are provided.