Dose calculation accuracy of clinical radiotherapy plans using next generation cone beam computed tomography imaging technology

Peter R. Martin , Amanda Cherpak , R. Lee MacDonald , Abigail Yashayaeva , David McAloney , Natasha McMaster , Kenny Zhan , Slawa Cwajna , Nikhilesh Patil , Hannah M. Dahn , James L. Robar
{"title":"Dose calculation accuracy of clinical radiotherapy plans using next generation cone beam computed tomography imaging technology","authors":"Peter R. Martin ,&nbsp;Amanda Cherpak ,&nbsp;R. Lee MacDonald ,&nbsp;Abigail Yashayaeva ,&nbsp;David McAloney ,&nbsp;Natasha McMaster ,&nbsp;Kenny Zhan ,&nbsp;Slawa Cwajna ,&nbsp;Nikhilesh Patil ,&nbsp;Hannah M. Dahn ,&nbsp;James L. Robar","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><div>Next generation cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) technology has shown improved Hounsfield unit accuracy over standard CBCT, and comparable to that of fan beam CT simulators (CTsim), potentially allowing direct dose calculation on CBCT. In this study, we evaluated the dose calculation accuracy of clinical treatment plans calculated using this technology, compared with standard CBCT.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Thirty subjects with thoracic or upper abdominal cancer were imaged on CTsim, standard CBCT and next generation CBCT, and treated using breath hold techniques. Both CBCT image sets were rigidly registered to CTsim, and clinical treatment plans were forward calculated on all images. 3D Gamma analysis was used to evaluate CBCT dose distributions relative to CTsim, and DVH analysis compared PTV and OAR dose metrics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median (±IQR) 3 %/3 mm gamma pass rate was 96.7 ± 3.1 % for next generation CBCT and 93.3 ± 14.0 % for standard CBCT. Next generation CBCT gamma scores were statistically significantly higher than standard CBCT for all gamma criteria. Median DVH metrics were within ± 2.3 % and ± 2.7 % of the corresponding values from CTsim, for next generation and standard CBCT respectively. Standard CBCT showed an underestimation of ipsilateral lung dose for breast subjects, while next generation CBCT did not.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Next generation CBCT allows for good average DVH agreement with CTsim, and improved dose calculation accuracy over standard CBCT across 3D dose distributions. While further clinical investigations are warranted, this technology may allow for the use of CBCT in direct-dose calculation in adaptive radiotherapy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"34 ","pages":"Article 100756"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631625000612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose

Next generation cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) technology has shown improved Hounsfield unit accuracy over standard CBCT, and comparable to that of fan beam CT simulators (CTsim), potentially allowing direct dose calculation on CBCT. In this study, we evaluated the dose calculation accuracy of clinical treatment plans calculated using this technology, compared with standard CBCT.

Materials and methods

Thirty subjects with thoracic or upper abdominal cancer were imaged on CTsim, standard CBCT and next generation CBCT, and treated using breath hold techniques. Both CBCT image sets were rigidly registered to CTsim, and clinical treatment plans were forward calculated on all images. 3D Gamma analysis was used to evaluate CBCT dose distributions relative to CTsim, and DVH analysis compared PTV and OAR dose metrics.

Results

The median (±IQR) 3 %/3 mm gamma pass rate was 96.7 ± 3.1 % for next generation CBCT and 93.3 ± 14.0 % for standard CBCT. Next generation CBCT gamma scores were statistically significantly higher than standard CBCT for all gamma criteria. Median DVH metrics were within ± 2.3 % and ± 2.7 % of the corresponding values from CTsim, for next generation and standard CBCT respectively. Standard CBCT showed an underestimation of ipsilateral lung dose for breast subjects, while next generation CBCT did not.

Conclusions

Next generation CBCT allows for good average DVH agreement with CTsim, and improved dose calculation accuracy over standard CBCT across 3D dose distributions. While further clinical investigations are warranted, this technology may allow for the use of CBCT in direct-dose calculation in adaptive radiotherapy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.90%
发文量
93
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ultra-low field magnetic resonance breast imaging in prone and seated positions for radiation therapy A systematic review of tumour position reproducibility and stability in breath-hold for radiation therapy of the upper abdomen Dose calculation accuracy of clinical radiotherapy plans using next generation cone beam computed tomography imaging technology Investigation of changes in planning target volume and regression probability of rectal boost using in-silico cone-beam computed tomography-guided online-adaptive radiotherapy A planning approach for online adaptive proton therapy to cope with cone beam computed tomography inaccuracies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1