Cargando…

Comparison of four synthetic CT generators for brain and prostate MR-only workflow in radiotherapy

BACKGROUND: The interest in MR-only workflows is growing with the introduction of artificial intelligence in the synthetic CT generators converting MR images into CT images. The aim of this study was to evaluate several commercially available sCT generators for two anatomical localizations. METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Autret, Damien, Guillerminet, Camille, Roussel, Alban, Cossec-Kerloc’h, Erwan, Dufreneix, Stéphane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10478301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37670397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02336-y
_version_ 1785101318895960064
author Autret, Damien
Guillerminet, Camille
Roussel, Alban
Cossec-Kerloc’h, Erwan
Dufreneix, Stéphane
author_facet Autret, Damien
Guillerminet, Camille
Roussel, Alban
Cossec-Kerloc’h, Erwan
Dufreneix, Stéphane
author_sort Autret, Damien
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The interest in MR-only workflows is growing with the introduction of artificial intelligence in the synthetic CT generators converting MR images into CT images. The aim of this study was to evaluate several commercially available sCT generators for two anatomical localizations. METHODS: Four sCT generators were evaluated: one based on the bulk density method and three based on deep learning methods. The comparison was performed on large patient cohorts (brain: 42 patients and pelvis: 52 patients). It included geometric accuracy with the evaluation of Hounsfield Units (HU) mean error (ME) for several structures like the body, bones and soft tissues. Dose evaluation included metrics like the D(mean) ME for bone structures (skull or femoral heads), PTV and soft tissues (brain or bladder or rectum). A 1%/1 mm gamma analysis was also performed. RESULTS: HU ME in the body were similar to those reported in the literature. D(mean) ME were smaller than 2% for all structures. Mean gamma pass rate down to 78% were observed for the bulk density method in the brain. Performances of the bulk density generator were generally worse than the artificial intelligence generators for the brain but similar for the pelvis. None of the generators performed best in all the metrics studied. CONCLUSIONS: All four generators can be used in clinical practice to implement a MR-only workflow but the bulk density method clearly performed worst in the brain. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s13014-023-02336-y).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10478301
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104783012023-09-06 Comparison of four synthetic CT generators for brain and prostate MR-only workflow in radiotherapy Autret, Damien Guillerminet, Camille Roussel, Alban Cossec-Kerloc’h, Erwan Dufreneix, Stéphane Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: The interest in MR-only workflows is growing with the introduction of artificial intelligence in the synthetic CT generators converting MR images into CT images. The aim of this study was to evaluate several commercially available sCT generators for two anatomical localizations. METHODS: Four sCT generators were evaluated: one based on the bulk density method and three based on deep learning methods. The comparison was performed on large patient cohorts (brain: 42 patients and pelvis: 52 patients). It included geometric accuracy with the evaluation of Hounsfield Units (HU) mean error (ME) for several structures like the body, bones and soft tissues. Dose evaluation included metrics like the D(mean) ME for bone structures (skull or femoral heads), PTV and soft tissues (brain or bladder or rectum). A 1%/1 mm gamma analysis was also performed. RESULTS: HU ME in the body were similar to those reported in the literature. D(mean) ME were smaller than 2% for all structures. Mean gamma pass rate down to 78% were observed for the bulk density method in the brain. Performances of the bulk density generator were generally worse than the artificial intelligence generators for the brain but similar for the pelvis. None of the generators performed best in all the metrics studied. CONCLUSIONS: All four generators can be used in clinical practice to implement a MR-only workflow but the bulk density method clearly performed worst in the brain. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s13014-023-02336-y). BioMed Central 2023-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10478301/ /pubmed/37670397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02336-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Autret, Damien
Guillerminet, Camille
Roussel, Alban
Cossec-Kerloc’h, Erwan
Dufreneix, Stéphane
Comparison of four synthetic CT generators for brain and prostate MR-only workflow in radiotherapy
title Comparison of four synthetic CT generators for brain and prostate MR-only workflow in radiotherapy
title_full Comparison of four synthetic CT generators for brain and prostate MR-only workflow in radiotherapy
title_fullStr Comparison of four synthetic CT generators for brain and prostate MR-only workflow in radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of four synthetic CT generators for brain and prostate MR-only workflow in radiotherapy
title_short Comparison of four synthetic CT generators for brain and prostate MR-only workflow in radiotherapy
title_sort comparison of four synthetic ct generators for brain and prostate mr-only workflow in radiotherapy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10478301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37670397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02336-y
work_keys_str_mv AT autretdamien comparisonoffoursyntheticctgeneratorsforbrainandprostatemronlyworkflowinradiotherapy
AT guillerminetcamille comparisonoffoursyntheticctgeneratorsforbrainandprostatemronlyworkflowinradiotherapy
AT rousselalban comparisonoffoursyntheticctgeneratorsforbrainandprostatemronlyworkflowinradiotherapy
AT cosseckerlocherwan comparisonoffoursyntheticctgeneratorsforbrainandprostatemronlyworkflowinradiotherapy
AT dufreneixstephane comparisonoffoursyntheticctgeneratorsforbrainandprostatemronlyworkflowinradiotherapy