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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rathee, Satyapal, Burke, Benjamin, Heikal, Amr
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