Cargando…

CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera

PURPOSE: Electron radiation therapy dose distributions are affected by irregular body surface contours. This study investigates the feasibility of three‐dimensional (3D) cameras to substitute for the treatment planning computerized tomography (CT) scan by capturing the body surfaces to be treated fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skinner, Lawrie, Knopp, Rick, Wang, Yi‐Chun, Dubrowski, Piotr, Bush, Karl K., Limmer, Alyssa, Trakul, Nicholas, Million, Lynn, Marquez, Carol M., Yu, Amy S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8292688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34042253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13283
_version_ 1783724874688102400
author Skinner, Lawrie
Knopp, Rick
Wang, Yi‐Chun
Dubrowski, Piotr
Bush, Karl K.
Limmer, Alyssa
Trakul, Nicholas
Million, Lynn
Marquez, Carol M.
Yu, Amy S.
author_facet Skinner, Lawrie
Knopp, Rick
Wang, Yi‐Chun
Dubrowski, Piotr
Bush, Karl K.
Limmer, Alyssa
Trakul, Nicholas
Million, Lynn
Marquez, Carol M.
Yu, Amy S.
author_sort Skinner, Lawrie
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Electron radiation therapy dose distributions are affected by irregular body surface contours. This study investigates the feasibility of three‐dimensional (3D) cameras to substitute for the treatment planning computerized tomography (CT) scan by capturing the body surfaces to be treated for accurate electron beam dosimetry. METHODS: Dosimetry was compared for six electron beam treatments to the nose, toe, eye, and scalp using full CT scan, CT scan with Hounsfield Unit (HU) overridden to water (mimic 3D camera cases), and flat‐phantom techniques. Radiation dose was prescribed to a depth on the central axis per physician’s order, and the monitor units (MUs) were calculated. The 3D camera spatial accuracy was evaluated by comparing the 3D surface of a head phantom captured by a 3D camera and that generated with the CT scan in the treatment planning system. A clinical case is presented, and MUs were calculated using the 3D camera body contour with HU overridden to water. RESULTS: Across six cases the average change in MUs between the full CT and the 3Dwater (CT scan with HU overridden to water) calculations was 1.3% with a standard deviation of 1.0%. The corresponding hotspots had a mean difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.9%. The 3D camera captured surface of a head phantom was found to have a 0.59 mm standard deviation from the surface derived from the CT scan. In‐vivo dose measurements (213 ± 8 cGy) agreed with the 3D‐camera planned dose of 209 ± 6 cGy, compared to 192 ± 6 cGy for the flat‐phantom calculation (same MUs). CONCLUSIONS: Electron beam dosimetry is affected by irregular body surfaces. 3D cameras can capture irregular body contours which allow accurate dosimetry of electron beam treatment as an alternative to costly CT scans with no extra exposure to radiation. Tools and workflow for clinical implementation are provided.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8292688
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82926882021-07-22 CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera Skinner, Lawrie Knopp, Rick Wang, Yi‐Chun Dubrowski, Piotr Bush, Karl K. Limmer, Alyssa Trakul, Nicholas Million, Lynn Marquez, Carol M. Yu, Amy S. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: Electron radiation therapy dose distributions are affected by irregular body surface contours. This study investigates the feasibility of three‐dimensional (3D) cameras to substitute for the treatment planning computerized tomography (CT) scan by capturing the body surfaces to be treated for accurate electron beam dosimetry. METHODS: Dosimetry was compared for six electron beam treatments to the nose, toe, eye, and scalp using full CT scan, CT scan with Hounsfield Unit (HU) overridden to water (mimic 3D camera cases), and flat‐phantom techniques. Radiation dose was prescribed to a depth on the central axis per physician’s order, and the monitor units (MUs) were calculated. The 3D camera spatial accuracy was evaluated by comparing the 3D surface of a head phantom captured by a 3D camera and that generated with the CT scan in the treatment planning system. A clinical case is presented, and MUs were calculated using the 3D camera body contour with HU overridden to water. RESULTS: Across six cases the average change in MUs between the full CT and the 3Dwater (CT scan with HU overridden to water) calculations was 1.3% with a standard deviation of 1.0%. The corresponding hotspots had a mean difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.9%. The 3D camera captured surface of a head phantom was found to have a 0.59 mm standard deviation from the surface derived from the CT scan. In‐vivo dose measurements (213 ± 8 cGy) agreed with the 3D‐camera planned dose of 209 ± 6 cGy, compared to 192 ± 6 cGy for the flat‐phantom calculation (same MUs). CONCLUSIONS: Electron beam dosimetry is affected by irregular body surfaces. 3D cameras can capture irregular body contours which allow accurate dosimetry of electron beam treatment as an alternative to costly CT scans with no extra exposure to radiation. Tools and workflow for clinical implementation are provided. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8292688/ /pubmed/34042253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13283 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://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
Skinner, Lawrie
Knopp, Rick
Wang, Yi‐Chun
Dubrowski, Piotr
Bush, Karl K.
Limmer, Alyssa
Trakul, Nicholas
Million, Lynn
Marquez, Carol M.
Yu, Amy S.
CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera
title CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera
title_full CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera
title_fullStr CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera
title_full_unstemmed CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera
title_short CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera
title_sort ct‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3d camera
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8292688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34042253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13283
work_keys_str_mv AT skinnerlawrie ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT knopprick ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT wangyichun ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT dubrowskipiotr ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT bushkarlk ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT limmeralyssa ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT trakulnicholas ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT millionlynn ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT marquezcarolm ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera
AT yuamys ctlesselectronradiotherapysimulationandplanningwithaconsumer3dcamera