Open AccessHead and neck cancer patient positioning using synthetic CT data in MRI‐only radiation therapy
Author(s) -
Palmér Emilia,
Nordström Fredrik,
Karlsson Anna,
Petruson Karin,
Ljungberg Maria,
Sohlin Maja
Publication year - 2022
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/acm2.13525
Subject(s) - nuclear medicine , medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , image guided radiation therapy , digital radiography , cone beam computed tomography , computer science , radiation therapy , contouring , radiography , radiology , mathematics , computed tomography , computer graphics (images)
Purpose The accuracy and precision of patient positioning is crucial in radiotherapy; however, there are no publications available using synthetic computed tomography (sCT) that evaluate rotations in head and neck (H&N) patients positioning or the effect of translation and rotation combined. The aim of this work was to evaluate the differences between using sCT with the CT for 2D‐ and 3D‐patient positioning in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐only workflow. Methods This study included 14 H&N cancer patients, with generated sCT data (MRI Planner v2.2) and the CT deformably registered to the MRI. Patient positioning was evaluated by comparing sCT against CT data: 3D cone beam CT (CBCT) was registered to the deformed CT (dCT) and sCT in six degrees of freedom (DoF) with a rigid auto‐registration algorithm and bone threshold, and 2D deformed digital reconstructed radiographs (dDRR) and synthetic DRRs (sDRR) were manually registered to orthogonal projections in five DoF by six blinded observers. The difference in displacement in all DoF were calculated for dCT and sCT, as well as for dDRR and sDRR. The interobserver variation was evaluated by separate application of the paired dDRR and sDRR registration matrices to the original coordinates of the planning target volume (PTV) structures and calculation of the Euclidean distance between the corresponding points. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was calculated between dDRR/sDRR‐registered PTVs. Results The mean difference in patient positioning using CBCT was <0.7 mm and <0.3° and using orthogonal projections <0.4 mm and <0.2° in all directions. The maximum Euclidean distance was 5.1 mm, the corresponding mean (1SD) Euclidean distance and mean DSC were 3.5 ± 0.7 mm and 0.93, respectively. Conclusions This study shows that the sCT‐based patient positioning gives a comparable result with that based on CT images, allowing sCT to replace CT as reference for patient treatment positioning.