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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |