改进锥束计算机断层扫描在适应性质子治疗中剂量计算的方法比较

IF 3.4 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Casper Dueholm Vestergaard , Nadine Vatterodt , Ulrik Vindelev Elstrøm , Kenneth Jensen , Ole Nørrevang , Ludvig Paul Muren , Stine Sofia Korreman , Vicki Trier Taasti
{"title":"改进锥束计算机断层扫描在适应性质子治疗中剂量计算的方法比较","authors":"Casper Dueholm Vestergaard ,&nbsp;Nadine Vatterodt ,&nbsp;Ulrik Vindelev Elstrøm ,&nbsp;Kenneth Jensen ,&nbsp;Ole Nørrevang ,&nbsp;Ludvig Paul Muren ,&nbsp;Stine Sofia Korreman ,&nbsp;Vicki Trier Taasti","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><div>Proton therapy requires dose monitoring, often performed based on repeated computed tomography (reCT) scans. However, reCT scans may not accurately reflect the internal anatomy and patient positioning during treatment. In-room cone-beam CT (CBCT) offers a potential alternative, but its low image quality limits proton dose calculation accuracy. This study therefore evaluated different methods for quality-improvement of CBCTs (synthetic CTs; sCTs) for use in adaptive proton therapy of head-and-neck cancer patients.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Thirty-five CBCTs from twenty-four head-and-neck cancer patients were used to assess four sCT generation methods: an intensity-correction method, two deformable image registration methods, and a deep learning-based method. The sCTs were evaluated against same-day reCTs for CT number accuracy, proton range accuracy through single-spot plans, and dose recalculation accuracy of clinical plans via dose-volume-histogram (DVH) parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All four methods generated sCTs with improved image quality while preserving the anatomy relative to the CBCT. The differences in absolute median proton range between sCT methods were small and generally less than the difference between sCT and reCT, which had median differences of 1.0–1.1 mm. Similarly, differences in DVH parameters were generally small between the sCT methods. While outliers were identified for all four methods, these outliers were often consistent for all sCT methods and could be attributed to anatomical and/or positional discrepancies between the CBCT and reCT.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>All four sCT methods enabled accurate proton dose calculation and preserved the anatomy, making them of value for adaptive proton therapy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"34 ","pages":"Article 100784"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing methods to improve cone-beam computed tomography for dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy\",\"authors\":\"Casper Dueholm Vestergaard ,&nbsp;Nadine Vatterodt ,&nbsp;Ulrik Vindelev Elstrøm ,&nbsp;Kenneth Jensen ,&nbsp;Ole Nørrevang ,&nbsp;Ludvig Paul Muren ,&nbsp;Stine Sofia Korreman ,&nbsp;Vicki Trier Taasti\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100784\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><div>Proton therapy requires dose monitoring, often performed based on repeated computed tomography (reCT) scans. However, reCT scans may not accurately reflect the internal anatomy and patient positioning during treatment. In-room cone-beam CT (CBCT) offers a potential alternative, but its low image quality limits proton dose calculation accuracy. This study therefore evaluated different methods for quality-improvement of CBCTs (synthetic CTs; sCTs) for use in adaptive proton therapy of head-and-neck cancer patients.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Thirty-five CBCTs from twenty-four head-and-neck cancer patients were used to assess four sCT generation methods: an intensity-correction method, two deformable image registration methods, and a deep learning-based method. The sCTs were evaluated against same-day reCTs for CT number accuracy, proton range accuracy through single-spot plans, and dose recalculation accuracy of clinical plans via dose-volume-histogram (DVH) parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All four methods generated sCTs with improved image quality while preserving the anatomy relative to the CBCT. The differences in absolute median proton range between sCT methods were small and generally less than the difference between sCT and reCT, which had median differences of 1.0–1.1 mm. Similarly, differences in DVH parameters were generally small between the sCT methods. While outliers were identified for all four methods, these outliers were often consistent for all sCT methods and could be attributed to anatomical and/or positional discrepancies between the CBCT and reCT.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>All four sCT methods enabled accurate proton dose calculation and preserved the anatomy, making them of value for adaptive proton therapy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":\"34 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100784\"},\"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/S2405631625000892\",\"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/S2405631625000892","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

摘要

背景和目的质子治疗需要剂量监测,通常基于重复计算机断层扫描(reCT)进行。然而,在治疗过程中,reCT扫描可能不能准确反映内部解剖结构和患者体位。室内锥束CT (CBCT)提供了一种潜在的替代方案,但其较低的图像质量限制了质子剂量计算的准确性。因此,本研究评估了提高cbct质量的不同方法(合成ct;sCTs)用于头颈癌患者的适应性质子治疗。材料和方法使用来自24例头颈癌患者的35张cbct来评估四种sCT生成方法:一种强度校正方法,两种可变形图像配准方法和一种基于深度学习的方法。对比当日reCTs评估sCTs的CT数准确性、单点方案的质子范围准确性,以及通过剂量-体积-直方图(DVH)参数评估临床方案的剂量重新计算准确性。结果四种方法生成的ct图像质量均有所提高,同时保留了相对于CBCT的解剖结构。sCT方法之间的绝对中位质子范围差异很小,通常小于sCT和reCT之间的差异,后者的中位差异为1.0-1.1 mm。同样,sCT方法之间DVH参数的差异通常很小。虽然所有四种方法都有异常值,但这些异常值在所有sCT方法中通常是一致的,这可能归因于CBCT和rect之间的解剖和/或位置差异。结论所有四种sCT方法都能准确计算质子剂量并保留解剖结构,使其具有适应性质子治疗的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing methods to improve cone-beam computed tomography for dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy

Background and purpose

Proton therapy requires dose monitoring, often performed based on repeated computed tomography (reCT) scans. However, reCT scans may not accurately reflect the internal anatomy and patient positioning during treatment. In-room cone-beam CT (CBCT) offers a potential alternative, but its low image quality limits proton dose calculation accuracy. This study therefore evaluated different methods for quality-improvement of CBCTs (synthetic CTs; sCTs) for use in adaptive proton therapy of head-and-neck cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Thirty-five CBCTs from twenty-four head-and-neck cancer patients were used to assess four sCT generation methods: an intensity-correction method, two deformable image registration methods, and a deep learning-based method. The sCTs were evaluated against same-day reCTs for CT number accuracy, proton range accuracy through single-spot plans, and dose recalculation accuracy of clinical plans via dose-volume-histogram (DVH) parameters.

Results

All four methods generated sCTs with improved image quality while preserving the anatomy relative to the CBCT. The differences in absolute median proton range between sCT methods were small and generally less than the difference between sCT and reCT, which had median differences of 1.0–1.1 mm. Similarly, differences in DVH parameters were generally small between the sCT methods. While outliers were identified for all four methods, these outliers were often consistent for all sCT methods and could be attributed to anatomical and/or positional discrepancies between the CBCT and reCT.

Conclusions

All four sCT methods enabled accurate proton dose calculation and preserved the anatomy, making them of value for adaptive proton therapy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.90%
发文量
93
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信