Impact of bulk density assignment of bone on MRI-based abdominal region radiotherapy planning for MR-linac workflow.

IF 2 4区医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1002/acm2.70059

Kota Abe, Masato Tsuneda, Yukio Fujita, Yukinao Abe, Takashi Uno

{"title":"Impact of bulk density assignment of bone on MRI-based abdominal region radiotherapy planning for MR-linac workflow.","authors":"Kota Abe, Masato Tsuneda, Yukio Fujita, Yukinao Abe, Takashi Uno","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of bone relative electron density (rED) assignment on radiotherapy planning for the abdominal region.Methods: Twenty patients who received abdominal radiotherapy using MR-Linac and underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) simulation were analyzed. The reference plan (RP) was established using both CT and MR image sets (RP_CT and RP_MRI). The RP_MRI utilized the bulk density method. The recalculated RPs derived from various rED assignment methods were evaluated for comparison on both datasets. The RPs were recalculated by excluding rED assignment for bones (scenario A). Based on the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements report, lung contours were assigned rED of 0.258, and body contours were assigned 1.000 (scenario B) and 1.019 (scenario C). Dose volume histogram (DVH) differences between the three recalculated scenarios and RPs were evaluated. D95, D99, and D1cc were evaluated for target volumes, including gross tumor volume, internal target volume, and planning target volume. DVH parameters, including D1cc for each abdominal organ at risk (OAR) and the mean dose to the liver and kidneys, were evaluated. Three-dimensional local gamma analysis was conducted to assess dose distribution differences between the three recalculated scenarios and RPs.Results: In all scenarios of the CT- and MRI-based validation, the average gamma pass rates (2%/2 mm) were higher than 95%. In the CT-based validation, all target DVHs across the 20 patients showed that none exceeded 2% error in scenario A, whereas 2% and 14% exceeded the threshold in scenarios B and C, respectively. For OARs in CT and MRI-based validation, absolute maximum dose differences when compared with those of the RP were 0.19 Gy and 0.22 Gy, respectively, in scenario A.Conclusion: Excluding bone rED considerations in abdominal treatment planning may not yield notable clinical differences.","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70059"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70059","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of bone relative electron density (rED) assignment on radiotherapy planning for the abdominal region.

Methods: Twenty patients who received abdominal radiotherapy using MR-Linac and underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) simulation were analyzed. The reference plan (RP) was established using both CT and MR image sets (RP_CT and RP_MRI). The RP_MRI utilized the bulk density method. The recalculated RPs derived from various rED assignment methods were evaluated for comparison on both datasets. The RPs were recalculated by excluding rED assignment for bones (scenario A). Based on the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements report, lung contours were assigned rED of 0.258, and body contours were assigned 1.000 (scenario B) and 1.019 (scenario C). Dose volume histogram (DVH) differences between the three recalculated scenarios and RPs were evaluated. D95, D99, and D1cc were evaluated for target volumes, including gross tumor volume, internal target volume, and planning target volume. DVH parameters, including D1cc for each abdominal organ at risk (OAR) and the mean dose to the liver and kidneys, were evaluated. Three-dimensional local gamma analysis was conducted to assess dose distribution differences between the three recalculated scenarios and RPs.

Results: In all scenarios of the CT- and MRI-based validation, the average gamma pass rates (2%/2 mm) were higher than 95%. In the CT-based validation, all target DVHs across the 20 patients showed that none exceeded 2% error in scenario A, whereas 2% and 14% exceeded the threshold in scenarios B and C, respectively. For OARs in CT and MRI-based validation, absolute maximum dose differences when compared with those of the RP were 0.19 Gy and 0.22 Gy, respectively, in scenario A.

Conclusion: Excluding bone rED considerations in abdominal treatment planning may not yield notable clinical differences.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 医学-核医学

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

19.00%

发文量

331

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission. JACMP will publish: -Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500. -Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed. -Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references. -Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents. -Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews. -Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics. -Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic