Cargando…

Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone for radiation planning is limited by the lack of electron density for dose calculations. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of using bulk electron density as a substitute for computed tomography (CT)‐derived electron dens...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karotki, Aliaksandr, Mah, Katherine, Meijer, Gert, Meltsner, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i4.3522
_version_ 1783284372791623680
author Karotki, Aliaksandr
Mah, Katherine
Meijer, Gert
Meltsner, Michael
author_facet Karotki, Aliaksandr
Mah, Katherine
Meijer, Gert
Meltsner, Michael
author_sort Karotki, Aliaksandr
collection PubMed
description The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone for radiation planning is limited by the lack of electron density for dose calculations. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of using bulk electron density as a substitute for computed tomography (CT)‐derived electron density in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning of head and neck (HN) cancers. Ten clinically‐approved, CT‐based IMRT treatment plans of HN cancer were used for this study. Three dose distributions were calculated and compared for each treatment plan. The first calculation used CT‐derived density and was assumed to be the most accurate. The second calculation used a homogeneous patient density of [Formula: see text]. For the third dose calculation, bone and air cavities were contoured and assigned a uniform density of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , respectively. The remaining tissues were assigned a density of [Formula: see text]. The use of homogeneous anatomy resulted in up to 4%–5% deviations in dose distribution as compared to CT‐derived electron density calculations. Assigning bulk density to bone and air cavities significantly improved the accuracy of the dose calculations. All parameters used to describe planning target volume coverage were within 2% of calculations based on CT‐derived density. For organs at risk, most of the parameters were within 2%, with the few exceptions located in low‐dose regions. The data presented here show that if bone and air cavities are overridden with the proper density, it is feasible to use a bulk electron density approach for accurate dose calculation in IMRT treatment planning of HN cancers. This may overcome the problem of the lack of electron density information should MRI‐only simulation be performed. PACS number: 87.55.D‐
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5718732
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57187322018-04-02 Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning Karotki, Aliaksandr Mah, Katherine Meijer, Gert Meltsner, Michael J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone for radiation planning is limited by the lack of electron density for dose calculations. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of using bulk electron density as a substitute for computed tomography (CT)‐derived electron density in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning of head and neck (HN) cancers. Ten clinically‐approved, CT‐based IMRT treatment plans of HN cancer were used for this study. Three dose distributions were calculated and compared for each treatment plan. The first calculation used CT‐derived density and was assumed to be the most accurate. The second calculation used a homogeneous patient density of [Formula: see text]. For the third dose calculation, bone and air cavities were contoured and assigned a uniform density of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , respectively. The remaining tissues were assigned a density of [Formula: see text]. The use of homogeneous anatomy resulted in up to 4%–5% deviations in dose distribution as compared to CT‐derived electron density calculations. Assigning bulk density to bone and air cavities significantly improved the accuracy of the dose calculations. All parameters used to describe planning target volume coverage were within 2% of calculations based on CT‐derived density. For organs at risk, most of the parameters were within 2%, with the few exceptions located in low‐dose regions. The data presented here show that if bone and air cavities are overridden with the proper density, it is feasible to use a bulk electron density approach for accurate dose calculation in IMRT treatment planning of HN cancers. This may overcome the problem of the lack of electron density information should MRI‐only simulation be performed. PACS number: 87.55.D‐ John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2011-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5718732/ /pubmed/22089006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i4.3522 Text en © 2011 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Karotki, Aliaksandr
Mah, Katherine
Meijer, Gert
Meltsner, Michael
Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning
title Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning
title_full Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning
title_fullStr Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning
title_short Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning
title_sort comparison of bulk electron density and voxel‐based electron density treatment planning
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i4.3522
work_keys_str_mv AT karotkialiaksandr comparisonofbulkelectrondensityandvoxelbasedelectrondensitytreatmentplanning
AT mahkatherine comparisonofbulkelectrondensityandvoxelbasedelectrondensitytreatmentplanning
AT meijergert comparisonofbulkelectrondensityandvoxelbasedelectrondensitytreatmentplanning
AT meltsnermichael comparisonofbulkelectrondensityandvoxelbasedelectrondensitytreatmentplanning