Impact of Computed Tomography (CT) Reconstruction Kernels on Radiotherapy Dose Calculation

Overview

Journal J Appl Clin Med Phys

Specialties Biophysics
General Medicine

Date 2020 Sep 5

PMID 32889789

Citations 2

Authors

Irina Vergalasova

Michael McKenna

Ning Jeff Yue

Meral Reyhan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To quantitatively evaluate the effect of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on various dose calculation algorithms with heterogeneity correction.

Methods: The gammex electron density (ED) Phantom was scanned with the Siemens PET/CT Biograph20 mCT and reconstructed with twelve different kernel options. Hounsfield unit (HU) vs electron density (ED) curves were generated to compare absolute differences. Scans were repeated under head and pelvis protocols and reconstructed per H40s (head) and B40s (pelvis) kernels. In addition, raw data from a full-body patient scan were also reconstructed using the four B kernels. Per reconstruction, photon (3D and VMAT), electron (18 and 20 MeV) and proton (single field) treatment plans were generated using Varian Eclipse dose calculation algorithms. Photon and electron plans were also simulated to pass through cortical bone vs liver plugs of the phantom for kernel comparison. Treatment field monitor units (MU) and isodose volumes were compared across all scenarios.

Results: The twelve kernels resulted in minor differences in HU, except at the extreme ends of the density curve with a maximum absolute difference of 55.2 HU. The head and pelvis scans of the phantom resulted in absolute HU differences of up to 49.1 HU for cortical bone and 45.1 HU for lung 300, which is a relative difference of 4.1% and 6.2%, respectively. MU comparisons across photon and proton calculation algorithms for the patient and phantom scans were within 1-2 MU, with a maximum difference of 5.4 MU found for the 20 MeV electron plan. The 20MeV electron plan also displayed maximum differences in isodose volumes of 20.4 cc for V90%.

Conclusion: Clinically insignificant differences were found among the various kernel generated plans for photon and proton plans calculated on patient and phantom scan data. However, differences in isodose volumes found for higher energy electron plans amongst the kernels may have clinical implications for prescribing dose to an isodose level.

Citing Articles

Consensus guide on CT-based prediction of stopping-power ratio using a Hounsfield look-up table for proton therapy.

Peters N, Taasti V, Ackermann B, Bolsi A, Vallhagen Dahlgren C, Ellerbrock M Radiother Oncol. 2023; 184:109675.

PMID: 37084884 PMC: 10351362. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109675.

Technical Note: Volumetric computed tomography for radiotherapy simulation and treatment planning.

Young H, Park C, Chau O, Lee T, Gaede S J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021; 22(8):295-302.

PMID: 34240548 PMC: 8364284. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13336.

References

Zurl B, Tiefling R, Winkler P, Kindl P, Kapp K . Hounsfield units variations: impact on CT-density based conversion tables and their effects on dose distribution. Strahlenther Onkol. 2013; 190(1):88-93. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-013-0464-5. View

Davis A, Palmer A, Nisbet A . Can CT scan protocols used for radiotherapy treatment planning be adjusted to optimize image quality and patient dose? A systematic review. Br J Radiol. 2017; 90(1076):20160406. PMC: 5603945. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160406. View

Cozzi L, Fogliata A, Buffa F, Bieri S . Dosimetric impact of computed tomography calibration on a commercial treatment planning system for external radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 1999; 48(3):335-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(98)00072-3. View

Landry G, Reniers B, Granton P, van Rooijen B, Beaulieu L, Wildberger J . Extracting atomic numbers and electron densities from a dual source dual energy CT scanner: experiments and a simulation model. Radiother Oncol. 2011; 100(3):375-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.08.029. View

OHora L, Foley S . Iterative reconstruction and automatic tube voltage selection reduce clinical CT radiation doses and image noise. Radiography (Lond). 2018; 24(1):28-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2017.08.010. View

Davis A, Palmer A, Pani S, Nisbet A . Assessment of the variation in CT scanner performance (image quality and Hounsfield units) with scan parameters, for image optimisation in radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med. 2018; 45:59-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.11.036. View

van Elmpt W, Landry G, Das M, Verhaegen F . Dual energy CT in radiotherapy: Current applications and future outlook. Radiother Oncol. 2016; 119(1):137-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.02.026. View

Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkschall G, Stern R . American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys. 1998; 25(10):1773-829. DOI: 10.1118/1.598373. View

Beeksma B, Truant D, Holloway L, Arumugam S . An assessment of image distortion and CT number accuracy within a wide-bore CT extended field of view. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2015; 38(2):255-61. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-015-0353-6. View

10.

Giantsoudi D, De Man B, Verburg J, Trofimov A, Jin Y, Wang G . Metal artifacts in computed tomography for radiation therapy planning: dosimetric effects and impact of metal artifact reduction. Phys Med Biol. 2017; 62(8):R49-R80. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa5293. View

11.

Skrzynski W, Zielinska-Dabrowska S, Wachowicz M, Slusarczyk-Kacprzyk W, Kukolowicz P, Bulski W . Computed tomography as a source of electron density information for radiation treatment planning. Strahlenther Onkol. 2010; 186(6):327-33. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-010-2086-5. View

12.

Huang J, Kerns J, Nute J, Liu X, Balter P, Stingo F . An evaluation of three commercially available metal artifact reduction methods for CT imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(3):1047-67. PMC: 4311882. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/3/1047. View

13.

Guan H, Yin F, Kim J . Accuracy of inhomogeneity correction in photon radiotherapy from CT scans with different settings. Phys Med Biol. 2002; 47(17):N223-31. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/47/17/402. View

14.

Dodge C, Tamm E, Cody D, Liu X, Jensen C, Wei W . Performance evaluation of iterative reconstruction algorithms for achieving CT radiation dose reduction - a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016; 17(2):511-531. PMC: 5875046. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5709. View

15.

Cheung J, Shugard E, Mistry N, Pouliot J, Chen J . Evaluating the impact of extended field-of-view CT reconstructions on CT values and dosimetric accuracy for radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2018; 46(2):892-901. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13299. View

16.

Li H, Dolly S, Chen H, Anastasio M, Low D, Li H . A comparative study based on image quality and clinical task performance for CT reconstruction algorithms in radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016; 17(4):377-390. PMC: 5690061. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.5763. View

17.

Ebert M, Lambert J, Greer P . CT-ED conversion on a GE Lightspeed-RT scanner: influence of scanner settings. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2008; 31(2):154-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF03178591. View

18.

Goodsitt M, Christodoulou E, Larson S . Accuracies of the synthesized monochromatic CT numbers and effective atomic numbers obtained with a rapid kVp switching dual energy CT scanner. Med Phys. 2011; 38(4):2222-32. DOI: 10.1118/1.3567509. View