Premium
SU‐E‐J‐240: The Impact On Clinical Dose‐Distributions When Using MR‐Images Registered with Stereotactic CT‐Images in Gamma Knife Radiosurgery
Author(s) -
Benmakhlouf H,
Wangerid T,
Kraepelien T,
Forander P
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4888293
Subject(s) - radiosurgery , gamma knife , nuclear medicine , medicine , voxel , radiation treatment planning , medical imaging , dosimetry , image registration , stereotactic radiotherapy , medical physics , radiology , computer science , radiation therapy , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics)
Purpose: Most Gamma knife treatments are based solely on MR‐images. However, for fractionated treatments and to implement TPS dose calculations that require electron densities, CT image data is essential. The purpose of this work is to assess the dosimetric effects of using MR‐images registered with stereotactic CT‐images in Gamma knife treatments. Methods: Twelve patients treated for vestibular schwannoma with Gamma Knife Perfexion (Elekta Instruments, Sweden) were selected for this study. The prescribed doses (12 Gy to periphery) were delivered based on the conventional approach of using stereotactic MR‐images only. These plans were imported into stereotactic CT‐images (by registering MR‐images with stereotactic CT‐images using the Leksell gamma plan registration software). The dose plans, for each patient, are identical in both cases except for potential rotations and translations resulting from the registration. The impact of the registrations was assessed by an algorithm written in Matlab. The algorithm compares the dose‐distributions voxel‐by‐voxel between the two plans, calculates the full dose coverage of the target (treated in the conventional approach) achieved by the CT‐based plan, and calculates the minimum dose delivered to the target (treated in the conventional approach) achieved by the CT‐based plan. Results: The mean dose difference between the plans was 0.2 Gy to 0.4 Gy (max 4.5 Gy) whereas between 89% and 97% of the target (treated in the conventional approach) received the prescribed dose, by the CT‐plan. The minimum dose to the target (treated in the conventional approach) given by the CT‐based plan was between 7.9 Gy and 10.7 Gy (compared to 12 Gy in the conventional treatment). Conclusion: The impact of using MR‐images registered with stereotactic CT‐images has successfully been compared to conventionally delivered dose plans showing significant differences between the two. Although CTimages have been implemented clinically; the effect of the registration has not been fully investigated.