Francesca Nella , Stephanie Tanadini-Lang, Riccardo Dal Bello
{"title":"Clinical implementation of patient-specific quality assurance for synthetic computed tomography","authors":"Francesca Nella , Stephanie Tanadini-Lang, Riccardo Dal Bello","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><div>In a magnetic resonance (MR) only planning workflow, MR image is the sole dataset acquired. In order to calculate the dose deposition, a synthetic CT (sCT) is generated to substitute the planning computed tomography (CT). This study aimed to establish acceptance criteria for the clinical implementation of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for sCT.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>A retrospective study was conducted on 60. 30 patients underwent a CT scan in treatment position and an MR in diagnostic position. 30 patients had both CT and MR images acquired in treatment position. For the latter group, a sCT for dose calculation was generated and compared against three PSQA methods: recalculation on (A) water override of the body, (B) tissue classes with bulk density overrides and (C) planning CT. The relative dose differences (ΔD [%]) between the sCT and the PSQA methos were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>ΔD for PTV Dmean for method (A) were within 3% for pelvis and 4% for brain cohorts, with standard deviations below 1%. Methods (B) and (C) remained within 2% and 1%, respectively, with deviations up to 1%.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The present study proposes a robust PSQA method for MR-only planning. Method (A) is a valuable tool for identifying potential large outliers for Dmean deviations (> 5 %) and it is proposed as the routine PSQA. Method (B) can be used for pelvis cases to improve detection to the 2 % level if method (A) fails. If both (A) and (B) fail, method (C) can be used as a fall-back.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"34 ","pages":"Article 100764"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631625000697","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose
In a magnetic resonance (MR) only planning workflow, MR image is the sole dataset acquired. In order to calculate the dose deposition, a synthetic CT (sCT) is generated to substitute the planning computed tomography (CT). This study aimed to establish acceptance criteria for the clinical implementation of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for sCT.
Materials and methods
A retrospective study was conducted on 60. 30 patients underwent a CT scan in treatment position and an MR in diagnostic position. 30 patients had both CT and MR images acquired in treatment position. For the latter group, a sCT for dose calculation was generated and compared against three PSQA methods: recalculation on (A) water override of the body, (B) tissue classes with bulk density overrides and (C) planning CT. The relative dose differences (ΔD [%]) between the sCT and the PSQA methos were evaluated.
Results
ΔD for PTV Dmean for method (A) were within 3% for pelvis and 4% for brain cohorts, with standard deviations below 1%. Methods (B) and (C) remained within 2% and 1%, respectively, with deviations up to 1%.
Conclusion
The present study proposes a robust PSQA method for MR-only planning. Method (A) is a valuable tool for identifying potential large outliers for Dmean deviations (> 5 %) and it is proposed as the routine PSQA. Method (B) can be used for pelvis cases to improve detection to the 2 % level if method (A) fails. If both (A) and (B) fail, method (C) can be used as a fall-back.