Premium
SU‐E‐I‐05: A Correction Algorithm for Kilovoltage Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography Dose Calculations in Cervical Cancer Patients
Author(s) -
Zhang J,
Zhang W,
Lu J
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4924002
Subject(s) - hounsfield scale , cone beam computed tomography , imaging phantom , nuclear medicine , image guided radiation therapy , radiation treatment planning , dosimetry , medicine , radiation therapy , cervical cancer , computed tomography , standard deviation , mathematics , radiology , cancer , statistics
Purpose: To investigate the accuracy and feasibility of dose calculations using kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography in cervical cancer radiotherapy using a correction algorithm. Methods: The Hounsfield units (HU) and electron density (HU‐density) curve was obtained for both planning CT (pCT) and kilovoltage cone beam CT (CBCT) using a CIRS‐062 calibration phantom. The pCT and kV‐CBCT images have different HU values, and if the HU‐density curve of CBCT was directly used to calculate dose in CBCT images may have a deviation on dose distribution. It is necessary to normalize the different HU values between pCT and CBCT. A HU correction algorithm was used for CBCT images (cCBCT). Fifteen intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans of cervical cancer were chosen, and the plans were transferred to the pCT and cCBCT data sets without any changes for dose calculations. Phantom and patient studies were carried out. The dose differences and dose distributions were compared between cCBCT plan and pCT plan. Results: The HU number of CBCT was measured by several times, and the maximum change was less than 2%. To compare with pCT, the CBCT and cCBCT has a discrepancy, the dose differences in CBCT and cCBCT images were 2.48%±0.65% (range: 1.3%∼3.8%) and 0.48%±0.21% (range: 0.1%∼0.82%) for phantom study, respectively. For dose calculation in patient images, the dose differences were 2.25%±0.43% (range: 1.4%∼3.4%) and 0.63%±0.35% (range: 0.13%∼0.97%), respectively. And for the dose distributions, the passing rate of cCBCT was higher than the CBCTs. Conclusion: The CBCT image for dose calculation is feasible in cervical cancer radiotherapy, and the correction algorithm offers acceptable accuracy. It will become a useful tool for adaptive radiation therapy.