Premium
SU‐E‐T‐161: Characterization and Validation of CT Simulator Hounsfield Units to Relative Stopping Power Values for Proton Treatment Planning
Author(s) -
Schnell E,
Ahmad S,
De La Fuente Herman T
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 - 10.1118/1.4924523
Subject(s) - hounsfield scale , imaging phantom , stopping power , scanner , proton therapy , nuclear medicine , proton , calibration , materials science , ionization chamber , radiation treatment planning , physics , computational physics , ionization , optics , nuclear physics , radiation therapy , computed tomography , detector , medicine , radiology , ion , quantum mechanics
Purpose: To develop a calibration curve that includes and minimizes the variations of Hounsfield Unit (HU) from a CT scanner to Relative Stopping Power (RSP) of tissues along the proton beam path. The variations are due to scanner and proton energy, technique, phantom size and placement, and tissue arrangement. Methods: A CIRS 062 M phantom with 10 plugs of known relative electron density (RED) was scanned through a 16 slice GE Discovery CT Simulator scanner. Three setup combinations of plug distributions and techniques clinically implemented for five treatment regions were scanned with energies of 100, 120, and 140 kV. Volumetric HU values were measured for each plug and scan. The RSP values derived through the Bethe‐Bloch formula are currently being verified with parallel‐plate ionization chamber measurements in water using 80, 150, and 225 MeV proton beam. Typical treatment plans for treatment regions of brain, head‐&‐neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis are being planned and dose delivered will be compared with film and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) measurements. Results: Percentage variations were determined for each variable. For tissues close to water, variations were <1% from any given parameter. Tissues far from water equivalence (lung and bone) showed the greatest sensitivity to change (7.4% maximum) with scanner energy and up to 5.3% with positioning of the phantom. No major variations were observed for proton energies within the treatment range. Conclusion: When deriving a calibration curve, attention should be placed to low and high HU values. A thorough verification process of calculated vs. water‐phantom measured RSP values at different proton energies, followed by dose validation of planned vs. measured doses in phantom with film and OSL detectors are currently being undertaken.