Cargando…

On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography

PURPOSE: For mobile lung tumors, four‐dimensional computer tomography (4D CT) is often used for simulation and treatment planning. Localization accuracy remains a challenge in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments. An attractive image guidance method to increase localization acc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baley, Colton, Kirby, Neil, Wagner, Timothy, Papanikolaou, Nikos, Myers, Pamela, Rasmussen, Karl, Stathakis, Sotirios, Saenz, Daniel
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/PMC8292704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34085384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13310
_version_ 1783724878512259072
author Baley, Colton
Kirby, Neil
Wagner, Timothy
Papanikolaou, Nikos
Myers, Pamela
Rasmussen, Karl
Stathakis, Sotirios
Saenz, Daniel
author_facet Baley, Colton
Kirby, Neil
Wagner, Timothy
Papanikolaou, Nikos
Myers, Pamela
Rasmussen, Karl
Stathakis, Sotirios
Saenz, Daniel
author_sort Baley, Colton
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: For mobile lung tumors, four‐dimensional computer tomography (4D CT) is often used for simulation and treatment planning. Localization accuracy remains a challenge in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments. An attractive image guidance method to increase localization accuracy is 4D cone‐beam CT (CBCT) as it allows for visualization of tumor motion with reduced motion artifacts. However, acquisition and reconstruction of 4D CBCT differ from that of 4D CT. This study evaluates the discrepancies between the reconstructed motion of 4D CBCT and 4D CT imaging over a wide range of sine target motion parameters and patient waveforms. METHODS: A thorax motion phantom was used to examine 24 sine motions with varying amplitudes and cycle times and seven patient waveforms. Each programmed motion was imaged using 4D CT and 4D CBCT. The images were processed to auto segment the target. For sine motion, the target centroid at each phase was fitted to a sinusoidal curve to evaluate equivalence in amplitude between the two imaging modalities. The patient waveform motion was evaluated based on the average 4D data sets. RESULTS: The mean difference and root‐mean‐square‐error between the two modalities for sine motion were −0.35 ± 0.22 and 0.60 mm, respectively, with 4D CBCT slightly overestimating amplitude compared with 4D CT. The two imaging methods were determined to be significantly equivalent within ±1 mm based on two one‐sided t tests (p < 0.001). For patient‐specific motion, the mean difference was 1.5 ± 2.1 (0.8 ± 0.6 without outlier), 0.4 ± 0.3, and 0.8 ± 0.6 mm for superior/inferior (SI), anterior/posterior (AP), and left/right (LR), respectively. CONCLUSION: In cases where 4D CT is used to image mobile tumors, 4D CBCT is an attractive localization method due to its assessment of motion with respect to 4D CT, particularly for lung SBRT treatments where accuracy is paramount.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8292704
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82927042021-07-22 On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography Baley, Colton Kirby, Neil Wagner, Timothy Papanikolaou, Nikos Myers, Pamela Rasmussen, Karl Stathakis, Sotirios Saenz, Daniel J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: For mobile lung tumors, four‐dimensional computer tomography (4D CT) is often used for simulation and treatment planning. Localization accuracy remains a challenge in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments. An attractive image guidance method to increase localization accuracy is 4D cone‐beam CT (CBCT) as it allows for visualization of tumor motion with reduced motion artifacts. However, acquisition and reconstruction of 4D CBCT differ from that of 4D CT. This study evaluates the discrepancies between the reconstructed motion of 4D CBCT and 4D CT imaging over a wide range of sine target motion parameters and patient waveforms. METHODS: A thorax motion phantom was used to examine 24 sine motions with varying amplitudes and cycle times and seven patient waveforms. Each programmed motion was imaged using 4D CT and 4D CBCT. The images were processed to auto segment the target. For sine motion, the target centroid at each phase was fitted to a sinusoidal curve to evaluate equivalence in amplitude between the two imaging modalities. The patient waveform motion was evaluated based on the average 4D data sets. RESULTS: The mean difference and root‐mean‐square‐error between the two modalities for sine motion were −0.35 ± 0.22 and 0.60 mm, respectively, with 4D CBCT slightly overestimating amplitude compared with 4D CT. The two imaging methods were determined to be significantly equivalent within ±1 mm based on two one‐sided t tests (p < 0.001). For patient‐specific motion, the mean difference was 1.5 ± 2.1 (0.8 ± 0.6 without outlier), 0.4 ± 0.3, and 0.8 ± 0.6 mm for superior/inferior (SI), anterior/posterior (AP), and left/right (LR), respectively. CONCLUSION: In cases where 4D CT is used to image mobile tumors, 4D CBCT is an attractive localization method due to its assessment of motion with respect to 4D CT, particularly for lung SBRT treatments where accuracy is paramount. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8292704/ /pubmed/34085384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13310 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
Baley, Colton
Kirby, Neil
Wagner, Timothy
Papanikolaou, Nikos
Myers, Pamela
Rasmussen, Karl
Stathakis, Sotirios
Saenz, Daniel
On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography
title On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography
title_full On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography
title_fullStr On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography
title_full_unstemmed On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography
title_short On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography
title_sort on the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four‐dimensional computer tomography and four‐dimensional cone‐beam computer tomography
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8292704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34085384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13310
work_keys_str_mv AT baleycolton ontheevaluationofmobiletargettrajectorybetweenfourdimensionalcomputertomographyandfourdimensionalconebeamcomputertomography
AT kirbyneil ontheevaluationofmobiletargettrajectorybetweenfourdimensionalcomputertomographyandfourdimensionalconebeamcomputertomography
AT wagnertimothy ontheevaluationofmobiletargettrajectorybetweenfourdimensionalcomputertomographyandfourdimensionalconebeamcomputertomography
AT papanikolaounikos ontheevaluationofmobiletargettrajectorybetweenfourdimensionalcomputertomographyandfourdimensionalconebeamcomputertomography
AT myerspamela ontheevaluationofmobiletargettrajectorybetweenfourdimensionalcomputertomographyandfourdimensionalconebeamcomputertomography
AT rasmussenkarl ontheevaluationofmobiletargettrajectorybetweenfourdimensionalcomputertomographyandfourdimensionalconebeamcomputertomography
AT stathakissotirios ontheevaluationofmobiletargettrajectorybetweenfourdimensionalcomputertomographyandfourdimensionalconebeamcomputertomography
AT saenzdaniel ontheevaluationofmobiletargettrajectorybetweenfourdimensionalcomputertomographyandfourdimensionalconebeamcomputertomography