6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Inter-centre variability of CT-based stopping-power prediction in particle therapy: Survey-based evaluation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and purpose

          Stopping-power ratios (SPRs) are used in particle therapy to calculate particle range in patients. The heuristic CT-to-SPR conversion (Hounsfield Look-Up-Table, HLUT), needed for treatment planning, depends on CT-scan and reconstruction parameters as well as the specific HLUT definition. To assess inter-centre differences in these parameters, we performed a survey-based qualitative evaluation, as a first step towards better standardisation of CT-based SPR derivation.

          Materials and methods

          A questionnaire was sent to twelve particle therapy centres (ten from Europe and two from USA). It asked for details on CT scanners, image acquisition and reconstruction, definition of the HLUT, body-region specific HLUT selection, investigations of beam-hardening and experimental validations of the HLUT. Technological improvements were rated regarding their potential to improve SPR accuracy.

          Results

          Scan parameters and HLUT definition varied widely. Either the stoichiometric method (eight centres) or a tissue-substitute-only HLUT definition (three centres) was used. One centre combined both methods. The number of HLUT line segments varied widely between two and eleven. Nine centres had investigated influence of beam-hardening, often including patient-size dependence. Ten centres had validated their HLUT experimentally, with very different validation schemes. Most centres deemed dual-energy CT promising for improving SPR accuracy.

          Conclusions

          Large inter-centre variability was found in implementation of CT scans, image reconstruction and especially in specification of the CT-to-SPR conversion. A future standardisation would reduce time-intensive institution-specific efforts and variations in treatment quality. Due to the interdependency of multiple parameters, no conclusion can be drawn on the derived SPR accuracy and its inter-centre variability.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations.

          The main advantages of proton therapy are the reduced total energy deposited in the patient as compared to photon techniques and the finite range of the proton beam. The latter adds an additional degree of freedom to treatment planning. The range in tissue is associated with considerable uncertainties caused by imaging, patient setup, beam delivery and dose calculation. Reducing the uncertainties would allow a reduction of the treatment volume and thus allow a better utilization of the advantages of protons. This paper summarizes the role of Monte Carlo simulations when aiming at a reduction of range uncertainties in proton therapy. Differences in dose calculation when comparing Monte Carlo with analytical algorithms are analyzed as well as range uncertainties due to material constants and CT conversion. Range uncertainties due to biological effects and the role of Monte Carlo for in vivo range verification are discussed. Furthermore, the current range uncertainty recipes used at several proton therapy facilities are revisited. We conclude that a significant impact of Monte Carlo dose calculation can be expected in complex geometries where local range uncertainties due to multiple Coulomb scattering will reduce the accuracy of analytical algorithms. In these cases Monte Carlo techniques might reduce the range uncertainty by several mm.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning.

            Computer tomographic (CT) scans are used to correct for tissue inhomogeneities in radiotherapy treatment planning. In order to guarantee a precise treatment, it is important to obtain the relationship between CT Hounsfield units and electron densities (or proton stopping powers for proton radiotherapy), which is the basic input for radiotherapy planning systems which consider tissue heterogeneities. A method is described to determine improved CT calibrations for biological tissue (a stoichiometric calibration) based on measurements using tissue equivalent materials. The precision of this stoichiometric calibration and the more usual tissue substitute calibration is determined by a comparison of calculated proton radiographic images based on these calibrations and measured radiographs of a biological sample. It has been found that the stoichiometric calibration is more precise than the tissue substitute calibration.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to patient stopping-power-ratio estimation using the stoichiometric calibration.

              The purpose of this study was to analyze factors affecting proton stopping-power-ratio (SPR) estimations and range uncertainties in proton therapy planning using the standard stoichiometric calibration. The SPR uncertainties were grouped into five categories according to their origins and then estimated based on previously published reports or measurements. For the first time, the impact of tissue composition variations on SPR estimation was assessed and the uncertainty estimates of each category were determined for low-density (lung), soft, and high-density (bone) tissues. A composite, 95th percentile water-equivalent-thickness uncertainty was calculated from multiple beam directions in 15 patients with various types of cancer undergoing proton therapy. The SPR uncertainties (1σ) were quite different (ranging from 1.6% to 5.0%) in different tissue groups, although the final combined uncertainty (95th percentile) for different treatment sites was fairly consistent at 3.0-3.4%, primarily because soft tissue is the dominant tissue type in the human body. The dominant contributing factor for uncertainties in soft tissues was the degeneracy of Hounsfield numbers in the presence of tissue composition variations. To reduce the overall uncertainties in SPR estimation, the use of dual-energy computed tomography is suggested. The values recommended in this study based on typical treatment sites and a small group of patients roughly agree with the commonly referenced value (3.5%) used for margin design. By using tissue-specific range uncertainties, one could estimate the beam-specific range margin by accounting for different types and amounts of tissues along a beam, which may allow for customization of range uncertainty for each beam direction.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
                Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
                Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
                Elsevier
                2405-6316
                30 April 2018
                April 2018
                30 April 2018
                : 6
                : 25-30
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
                [b ]Westdeutsches Protonentherapiezentrum, Essen gGmbH, Essen, Germany
                [c ]The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden
                [d ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
                [e ]Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Medical Physics, Heidelberg, Germany
                [f ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [g ]EBG MedAustron GmbH, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
                [h ]The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
                [i ]Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
                [j ]Institut Curie, Centre de Protonthérapie, d’Orsay, Orsay, France
                [k ]CNAO, Pavia, Italy
                [l ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
                [m ]OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
                [n ]Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Noerrebrogade 44, Aarhus, Denmark. victaa@ 123456rm.dk
                [1]

                On behalf of the European Particle Therapy Network (EPTN), an ESTRO task group.

                [2]

                Dr. Ludvig Muren, a co-author of this paper, is Editor-in-Chief of Physics & Imaging in Radiation Oncology. A member of the Editorial Board managed the editorial process for this manuscript independently from Dr. Muren and the manuscript was subject to the Journal's usual peer-review process.

                Article
                S2405-6316(18)30021-6
                10.1016/j.phro.2018.04.006
                7807627
                33458385
                4710c934-aa0e-4499-ae5a-ef58982b1111
                © 2018 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 13 March 2018
                : 20 April 2018
                : 23 April 2018
                Categories
                Original Research Article

                particle treatment planning,hounsfield look-up-table,ct scan protocol,stopping-power ratio prediction,inter-centre comparison,dual-energy ct

                Comments

                Comment on this article