Cargando…

Impact of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation

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 d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vergalasova, Irina, McKenna, Michael, Yue, Ning Jeff, Reyhan, Meral
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32889789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12994
_version_ 1783583407418114048
author Vergalasova, Irina
McKenna, Michael
Yue, Ning Jeff
Reyhan, Meral
author_facet Vergalasova, Irina
McKenna, Michael
Yue, Ning Jeff
Reyhan, Meral
author_sort Vergalasova, Irina
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7497921
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74979212020-09-25 Impact of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation Vergalasova, Irina McKenna, Michael Yue, Ning Jeff Reyhan, Meral J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7497921/ /pubmed/32889789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12994 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Vergalasova, Irina
McKenna, Michael
Yue, Ning Jeff
Reyhan, Meral
Impact of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation
title Impact of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_full Impact of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_fullStr Impact of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_full_unstemmed Impact of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_short Impact of computed tomography (CT) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_sort impact of computed tomography (ct) reconstruction kernels on radiotherapy dose calculation
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32889789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12994
work_keys_str_mv AT vergalasovairina impactofcomputedtomographyctreconstructionkernelsonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT mckennamichael impactofcomputedtomographyctreconstructionkernelsonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT yueningjeff impactofcomputedtomographyctreconstructionkernelsonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT reyhanmeral impactofcomputedtomographyctreconstructionkernelsonradiotherapydosecalculation