Maryam Afifah , Marloes C. Bulthuis , Karin N. Goudschaal , Jolanda M. Verbeek-Spijkerman , Tezontl S. Rosario , Duncan den Boer , Karel A. Hinnen , Arjan Bel , Zdenko van Kesteren
{"title":"用于光子放射治疗的虚拟非增强双能计算机断层扫描：对剂量分布和基于锥形束计算机断层扫描的位置验证的影响","authors":"Maryam Afifah , Marloes C. Bulthuis , Karin N. Goudschaal , Jolanda M. Verbeek-Spijkerman , Tezontl S. Rosario , Duncan den Boer , Karel A. Hinnen , Arjan Bel , Zdenko van Kesteren","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Purpose</h3><p>Virtual Unenhanced images (VUE) from contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) eliminate manual suppression of contrast-enhanced structures (CES) or pre-contrast scans. CT intensity decreases in high-density structures outside the CES following VUE algorithm application. This study assesses VUE's impact on the radiotherapy workflow of gynecological tumors, comparing dose distribution and cone-beam CT-based (CBCT) position verification to contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>A total of 14 gynecological patients with contrast-enhanced CT simulation were included. Two CT images were reconstructed: CECT and VUE. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans generated on CECT were recalculated on VUE using both the CECT lookup table (LUT) and a dedicated VUE LUT. Gamma analysis assessed 3D dose distributions. CECT and VUE images were retrospectively registered to daily CBCT using Chamfer matching algorithm..</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Planning target volume <strong>(</strong>PTV) dose agreement with CECT was within 0.35% for D<sub>2%</sub>, D<sub>mean</sub>, and D<sub>98%</sub>. Organs at risk (OARs) D<sub>2%</sub> agreed within 0.36%. A dedicated VUE LUT lead to smaller dose differences, achieving a 100% gamma pass rate for all subjects. VUE imaging showed similar translations and rotations to CECT, with significant but minor translation differences (<0.02 cm). VUE-based registration outperformed CECT. In 24% of CBCT-CECT registrations, inadequate registration was observed due to contrast-related issues, while corresponding VUE images achieved clinically acceptable registrations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>VUE imaging in the radiotherapy workflow is feasible, showing comparable dose distributions and improved CBCT registration results compared to CECT. VUE enables automated bone registration, limiting inter-observer variation in the Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000150/pdfft?md5=37c70830fa65a62f5a009711aa0a3200&pid=1-s2.0-S2405631624000150-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Virtual unenhanced dual-energy computed tomography for photon radiotherapy: The effect on dose distribution and cone-beam computed tomography based position verification\",\"authors\":\"Maryam Afifah , Marloes C. Bulthuis , Karin N. Goudschaal , Jolanda M. Verbeek-Spijkerman , Tezontl S. Rosario , Duncan den Boer , Karel A. Hinnen , Arjan Bel , Zdenko van Kesteren\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and Purpose</h3><p>Virtual Unenhanced images (VUE) from contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) eliminate manual suppression of contrast-enhanced structures (CES) or pre-contrast scans. CT intensity decreases in high-density structures outside the CES following VUE algorithm application. This study assesses VUE's impact on the radiotherapy workflow of gynecological tumors, comparing dose distribution and cone-beam CT-based (CBCT) position verification to contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>A total of 14 gynecological patients with contrast-enhanced CT simulation were included. Two CT images were reconstructed: CECT and VUE. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans generated on CECT were recalculated on VUE using both the CECT lookup table (LUT) and a dedicated VUE LUT. Gamma analysis assessed 3D dose distributions. CECT and VUE images were retrospectively registered to daily CBCT using Chamfer matching algorithm..</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Planning target volume <strong>(</strong>PTV) dose agreement with CECT was within 0.35% for D<sub>2%</sub>, D<sub>mean</sub>, and D<sub>98%</sub>. Organs at risk (OARs) D<sub>2%</sub> agreed within 0.36%. A dedicated VUE LUT lead to smaller dose differences, achieving a 100% gamma pass rate for all subjects. VUE imaging showed similar translations and rotations to CECT, with significant but minor translation differences (<0.02 cm). VUE-based registration outperformed CECT. In 24% of CBCT-CECT registrations, inadequate registration was observed due to contrast-related issues, while corresponding VUE images achieved clinically acceptable registrations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>VUE imaging in the radiotherapy workflow is feasible, showing comparable dose distributions and improved CBCT registration results compared to CECT. VUE enables automated bone registration, limiting inter-observer variation in the Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) process.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000150/pdfft?md5=37c70830fa65a62f5a009711aa0a3200&pid=1-s2.0-S2405631624000150-main.pdf\",\"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/S2405631624000150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Virtual unenhanced dual-energy computed tomography for photon radiotherapy: The effect on dose distribution and cone-beam computed tomography based position verification
Background and Purpose
Virtual Unenhanced images (VUE) from contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) eliminate manual suppression of contrast-enhanced structures (CES) or pre-contrast scans. CT intensity decreases in high-density structures outside the CES following VUE algorithm application. This study assesses VUE's impact on the radiotherapy workflow of gynecological tumors, comparing dose distribution and cone-beam CT-based (CBCT) position verification to contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images.
Materials and Methods
A total of 14 gynecological patients with contrast-enhanced CT simulation were included. Two CT images were reconstructed: CECT and VUE. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans generated on CECT were recalculated on VUE using both the CECT lookup table (LUT) and a dedicated VUE LUT. Gamma analysis assessed 3D dose distributions. CECT and VUE images were retrospectively registered to daily CBCT using Chamfer matching algorithm..
Results
Planning target volume (PTV) dose agreement with CECT was within 0.35% for D2%, Dmean, and D98%. Organs at risk (OARs) D2% agreed within 0.36%. A dedicated VUE LUT lead to smaller dose differences, achieving a 100% gamma pass rate for all subjects. VUE imaging showed similar translations and rotations to CECT, with significant but minor translation differences (<0.02 cm). VUE-based registration outperformed CECT. In 24% of CBCT-CECT registrations, inadequate registration was observed due to contrast-related issues, while corresponding VUE images achieved clinically acceptable registrations.
Conclusions
VUE imaging in the radiotherapy workflow is feasible, showing comparable dose distributions and improved CBCT registration results compared to CECT. VUE enables automated bone registration, limiting inter-observer variation in the Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) process.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
