Investigation of the usability of conebeam CT data sets for dose calculation.
BACKGROUND
To investigate the feasibility and accuracy of dose calculation in cone beam CT (CBCT) data sets.


METHODS
Kilovoltage CBCT images were acquired with the Elekta XVI system, CT studies generated with a conventional multi-slice CT scanner (Siemens Somatom Sensation Open) served as reference images. Material specific volumes of interest (VOI) were defined for commercial CT Phantoms (CATPhan and Gammex RMI) and CT values were evaluated in CT and CBCT images. For CBCT imaging, the influence of image acquisition parameters such as tube voltage, with or without filter (F1 or F0) and collimation on the CT values was investigated. CBCT images of 33 patients (pelvis n = 11, thorax n = 11, head n = 11) were compared with corresponding planning CT studies. Dose distributions for three different treatment plans were calculated in CT and CBCT images and differences were evaluated. Four different correction strategies to match CT values (HU) and density (D) in CBCT images were analysed: standard CT HU-D table without adjustment for CBCT; phantom based HU-D tables; patient group based HU-D tables (pelvis, thorax, head); and patient specific HU-D tables.


RESULTS
CT values in the CBCT images of the CATPhan were highly variable depending on the image acquisition parameters: a mean difference of 564 HU +/- 377 HU was calculated between CT values determined from the planning CT and CBCT images. Hence, two protocols were selected for CBCT imaging in the further part of the study and HU-D tables were always specific for these protocols (pelvis and thorax with M20F1 filter, 120 kV; head S10F0 no filter, 100 kV). For dose calculation in real patient CBCT images, the largest differences between CT and CBCT were observed for the standard CT HU-D table: differences were 8.0% +/- 5.7%, 10.9% +/- 6.8% and 14.5% +/- 10.4% respectively for pelvis, thorax and head patients using clinical treatment plans. The use of patient and group based HU-D tables resulted in small dose differences between planning CT and CBCT: 0.9% +/- 0.9%, 1.8% +/- 1.6%, 1.5% +/- 2.5% for pelvis, thorax and head patients, respectively. The application of the phantom based HU-D table was acceptable for the head patients but larger deviations were determined for the pelvis and thorax patient populations.


CONCLUSIONS
The generation of three HU-D tables specific for the anatomical regions pelvis, thorax and head and specific for the corresponding CBCT image acquisition parameters resulted in accurate dose calculation in CBCT images. Once these HU-D tables are created, direct dose calculation on CBCT datasets is possible without the need of a reference CT images for pixel value calibration.
Richter
Anne
A
Julius-Maximilians-University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Wuerzburg, Germany. richter_a3@klinik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Hu
Qiaoqiao
Q
Steglich
Doreen
D
Baier
Kurt
K
Wilbert
Jürgen
J
Guckenberger
Matthias
M
Flentje
Michael
M
D002138:Calibration; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006257:Head / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy; D010388:Pelvis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D013902:Radiography, Thoracic / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013909:Thorax / Q000528:radiation effects