Accuracy of proton stopping power estimation of silicone breast implants with single and dual‐energy CT calibration techniques

A major contributing factor to proton range uncertainty is the conversion of computed tomography (CT) Hounsfield Units (HU) to proton relative stopping power (RSP). This uncertainty is elevated with implanted devices, such as silicone breast implants when computed with single energy CT (SECT). In recent years, manufacturers have introduced implants with variations in gel cohesivity. Deriving the RSP for these implants from dual‐energy CT (DECT) can result in a marked reduction of the error associated with SECT. In this study, we investigate the validity of DECT calibration of HU to RSP on silicone breast implants of varying cohesivity levels. A DECT capable scanner was calibrated using the stoichiometric method of Bourque et al for SECT and DECT using a tissue substitute phantom. Three silicone breast implants of increasing gel cohesivity were measured in a proton beam of clinical energy to determine ground‐truth RSP and water equivalent thickness (WET). These were compared to SECT‐derived RSP at three CT spectrum energies and DECT with two energy pairs (80/140 kVp and 100/140 kVp) as obtained from scans with and without an anthropomorphic phantom. The RSP derived from parameters estimates from CT vendor‐specific software (syngo.via) was compared. The WET estimates from SECT deviated from MLIC ground truth approximately +11%–19%, which would result in overpenetration if used clinically. Both the Bourque calibration and syngo.via WET estimates from DECT yielded error ≤0.5% from ground truth; no significant difference was found between models of varying gel cohesivity levels. WET estimates without the anthropomorphic phantom were significantly different than ground truth for the Bourque calibration. From these results, gel cohesivity had no effect on proton RSP. User‐generated DECT calibration can yield comparably accurate RSP estimates for silicone breast implants to vendor software methods. However, care must be taken to account for beam hardening effects.