Cargando…
Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss
PURPOSE: This investigation compares three commercial methods of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based dosimetric analysis to a method based on repeat computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen head-and-neck patients treated in 2020, and with a repeat CT, were included in the an...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9997542/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36908500 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.jmp_7_22 |
_version_ | 1784903275672240128 |
---|---|
author | Rathee, Satyapal Burke, Benjamin Heikal, Amr |
author_facet | Rathee, Satyapal Burke, Benjamin Heikal, Amr |
author_sort | Rathee, Satyapal |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: This investigation compares three commercial methods of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based dosimetric analysis to a method based on repeat computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen head-and-neck patients treated in 2020, and with a repeat CT, were included in the analyses. The planning CT was deformed to anatomy in repeat CT to generate a reference plan. Two of the CBCT-based methods generated test plans by deforming the planning CT to CBCT of fraction N using VelocityAI™ and SmartAdapt(®). The third method compared directly calculated doses on the CBCT for fraction 1 and fraction N, using PerFraction™. Maximum dose to spinal cord (Cord_dmax) and dose to 95% volume (D95) of planning target volumes (PTVs) were used to assess “need to replan” criteria. RESULTS: The VelocityAI™ method provided results that most accurately matched the reference plan in “need to replan” criteria using either Cord_dmax or PTV D95. SmartAdapt(®) method overestimated the change in Cord_dmax (6.77% vs. 3.85%, P < 0.01) and change in cord volume (9.56% vs. 0.67%, P < 0.01) resulting in increased false positives in “need to replan” criteria, and performed similarly to VelocityAI™ for D95, but yielded more false negatives. PerFraction™ method underestimated Cord_dmax, did not perform any volume deformation, and missed all “need to replan” cases based on cord dose. It also yielded high false negatives using the D95 PTV criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The VelocityAI™-based method using fraction N CBCT is most similar to the reference plan using repeat CT; the other two methods had significant differences. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9997542 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99975422023-03-10 Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss Rathee, Satyapal Burke, Benjamin Heikal, Amr J Med Phys Original Article PURPOSE: This investigation compares three commercial methods of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based dosimetric analysis to a method based on repeat computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen head-and-neck patients treated in 2020, and with a repeat CT, were included in the analyses. The planning CT was deformed to anatomy in repeat CT to generate a reference plan. Two of the CBCT-based methods generated test plans by deforming the planning CT to CBCT of fraction N using VelocityAI™ and SmartAdapt(®). The third method compared directly calculated doses on the CBCT for fraction 1 and fraction N, using PerFraction™. Maximum dose to spinal cord (Cord_dmax) and dose to 95% volume (D95) of planning target volumes (PTVs) were used to assess “need to replan” criteria. RESULTS: The VelocityAI™ method provided results that most accurately matched the reference plan in “need to replan” criteria using either Cord_dmax or PTV D95. SmartAdapt(®) method overestimated the change in Cord_dmax (6.77% vs. 3.85%, P < 0.01) and change in cord volume (9.56% vs. 0.67%, P < 0.01) resulting in increased false positives in “need to replan” criteria, and performed similarly to VelocityAI™ for D95, but yielded more false negatives. PerFraction™ method underestimated Cord_dmax, did not perform any volume deformation, and missed all “need to replan” cases based on cord dose. It also yielded high false negatives using the D95 PTV criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The VelocityAI™-based method using fraction N CBCT is most similar to the reference plan using repeat CT; the other two methods had significant differences. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2023-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9997542/ /pubmed/36908500 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.jmp_7_22 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Medical Physics https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Rathee, Satyapal Burke, Benjamin Heikal, Amr Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss |
title | Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss |
title_full | Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss |
title_short | Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss |
title_sort | comparison of three commercial methods of cone-beam computed tomography-based dosimetric analysis of head-and-neck patients with weight loss |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9997542/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36908500 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.jmp_7_22 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ratheesatyapal comparisonofthreecommercialmethodsofconebeamcomputedtomographybaseddosimetricanalysisofheadandneckpatientswithweightloss AT burkebenjamin comparisonofthreecommercialmethodsofconebeamcomputedtomographybaseddosimetricanalysisofheadandneckpatientswithweightloss AT heikalamr comparisonofthreecommercialmethodsofconebeamcomputedtomographybaseddosimetricanalysisofheadandneckpatientswithweightloss |