Open AccessOn the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography
Author(s) -
Baley Colton,
Kirby Neil,
Wagner Timothy,
Papanikolaou Nikos,
Myers Pamela,
Rasmussen Karl,
Stathakis Sotirios,
Saenz Daniel
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/acm2.13310
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , cone beam computed tomography , nuclear medicine , amplitude , computer vision , centroid , tomography , computer science , iterative reconstruction , artificial intelligence , mathematics , medicine , physics , radiology , computed tomography , optics
Abstract Purpose For mobile lung tumors, four‐dimensional computer tomography (4D CT) is often used for simulation and treatment planning. Localization accuracy remains a challenge in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments. An attractive image guidance method to increase localization accuracy is 4D cone‐beam CT (CBCT) as it allows for visualization of tumor motion with reduced motion artifacts. However, acquisition and reconstruction of 4D CBCT differ from that of 4D CT. This study evaluates the discrepancies between the reconstructed motion of 4D CBCT and 4D CT imaging over a wide range of sine target motion parameters and patient waveforms. Methods A thorax motion phantom was used to examine 24 sine motions with varying amplitudes and cycle times and seven patient waveforms. Each programmed motion was imaged using 4D CT and 4D CBCT. The images were processed to auto segment the target. For sine motion, the target centroid at each phase was fitted to a sinusoidal curve to evaluate equivalence in amplitude between the two imaging modalities. The patient waveform motion was evaluated based on the average 4D data sets. Results The mean difference and root‐mean‐square‐error between the two modalities for sine motion were −0.35 ± 0.22 and 0.60 mm, respectively, with 4D CBCT slightly overestimating amplitude compared with 4D CT. The two imaging methods were determined to be significantly equivalent within ±1 mm based on two one‐sided t tests ( p < 0.001). For patient‐specific motion, the mean difference was 1.5 ± 2.1 (0.8 ± 0.6 without outlier), 0.4 ± 0.3, and 0.8 ± 0.6 mm for superior/inferior (SI), anterior/posterior (AP), and left/right (LR), respectively. Conclusion In cases where 4D CT is used to image mobile tumors, 4D CBCT is an attractive localization method due to its assessment of motion with respect to 4D CT, particularly for lung SBRT treatments where accuracy is paramount.