skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-J-109: Generate Synthetic CT From Cone Beam CT for CBCT-Based Dose Calculation

Abstract

Purpose: The use of CBCT for dose calculation is limited by its HU inaccuracy from increased scatter. This study presents a method to generate synthetic CT images from CBCT data by a probabilistic classification that may be robust to CBCT noise. The feasibility of using the synthetic CT for dose calculation is evaluated in IMRT for unilateral H&N cancer. Methods: In the training phase, a fuzzy c-means classification was performed on HU vectors (CBCT, CT) of planning CT and registered day-1 CBCT image pair. Using the resulting centroid CBCT and CT values for five classified “tissue” types, a synthetic CT for a daily CBCT was created by classifying each CBCT voxel to obtain its probability belonging to each tissue class, then assigning a CT HU with a probability-weighted summation of the classes’ CT centroids. Two synthetic CTs from a CBCT were generated: s-CT using the centroids from classification of individual patient CBCT/CT data; s2-CT using the same centroids for all patients to investigate the applicability of group-based centroids. IMRT dose calculations for five patients were performed on the synthetic CTs and compared with CT-planning doses by dose-volume statistics. Results: DVH curves of PTVs and critical organs calculated on s-CT andmore » s2-CT agree with those from planning-CT within 3%, while doses calculated with heterogeneity off or on raw CBCT show DVH differences up to 15%. The differences in PTV D95% and spinal cord max are 0.6±0.6% and 0.6±0.3% for s-CT, and 1.6±1.7% and 1.9±1.7% for s2-CT. Gamma analysis (2%/2mm) shows 97.5±1.6% and 97.6±1.6% pass rates for using s-CTs and s2-CTs compared with CT-based doses, respectively. Conclusion: CBCT-synthesized CTs using individual or group-based centroids resulted in dose calculations that are comparable to CT-planning dose for unilateral H&N cancer. The method may provide a tool for accurate dose calculation based on daily CBCT.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22634716
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ANIMAL TISSUES; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CRITICAL ORGANS; FUZZY LOGIC; IMAGE PROCESSING; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; PROBABILISTIC ESTIMATION; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SPINAL CORD

Citation Formats

Wang, H, Barbee, D, Wang, W, Pennell, R, Hu, K, and Osterman, K. SU-F-J-109: Generate Synthetic CT From Cone Beam CT for CBCT-Based Dose Calculation. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956017.
Wang, H, Barbee, D, Wang, W, Pennell, R, Hu, K, & Osterman, K. SU-F-J-109: Generate Synthetic CT From Cone Beam CT for CBCT-Based Dose Calculation. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956017.
Wang, H, Barbee, D, Wang, W, Pennell, R, Hu, K, and Osterman, K. 2016. "SU-F-J-109: Generate Synthetic CT From Cone Beam CT for CBCT-Based Dose Calculation". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956017.
@article{osti_22634716,
title = {SU-F-J-109: Generate Synthetic CT From Cone Beam CT for CBCT-Based Dose Calculation},
author = {Wang, H and Barbee, D and Wang, W and Pennell, R and Hu, K and Osterman, K},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The use of CBCT for dose calculation is limited by its HU inaccuracy from increased scatter. This study presents a method to generate synthetic CT images from CBCT data by a probabilistic classification that may be robust to CBCT noise. The feasibility of using the synthetic CT for dose calculation is evaluated in IMRT for unilateral H&N cancer. Methods: In the training phase, a fuzzy c-means classification was performed on HU vectors (CBCT, CT) of planning CT and registered day-1 CBCT image pair. Using the resulting centroid CBCT and CT values for five classified “tissue” types, a synthetic CT for a daily CBCT was created by classifying each CBCT voxel to obtain its probability belonging to each tissue class, then assigning a CT HU with a probability-weighted summation of the classes’ CT centroids. Two synthetic CTs from a CBCT were generated: s-CT using the centroids from classification of individual patient CBCT/CT data; s2-CT using the same centroids for all patients to investigate the applicability of group-based centroids. IMRT dose calculations for five patients were performed on the synthetic CTs and compared with CT-planning doses by dose-volume statistics. Results: DVH curves of PTVs and critical organs calculated on s-CT and s2-CT agree with those from planning-CT within 3%, while doses calculated with heterogeneity off or on raw CBCT show DVH differences up to 15%. The differences in PTV D95% and spinal cord max are 0.6±0.6% and 0.6±0.3% for s-CT, and 1.6±1.7% and 1.9±1.7% for s2-CT. Gamma analysis (2%/2mm) shows 97.5±1.6% and 97.6±1.6% pass rates for using s-CTs and s2-CTs compared with CT-based doses, respectively. Conclusion: CBCT-synthesized CTs using individual or group-based centroids resulted in dose calculations that are comparable to CT-planning dose for unilateral H&N cancer. The method may provide a tool for accurate dose calculation based on daily CBCT.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956017},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To develop a CBCT HU correction method using a patient specific HU to mass density conversion curve based on a novel image registration and organ mapping method for head-and-neck radiation therapy. Methods: There are three steps to generate a patient specific CBCT HU to mass density conversion curve. First, we developed a novel robust image registration method based on sparseness analysis to register the planning CT (PCT) and the CBCT. Second, a novel organ mapping method was developed to transfer the organs at risk (OAR) contours from the PCT to the CBCT and corresponding mean HU values of eachmore » OAR were measured in both the PCT and CBCT volumes. Third, a set of PCT and CBCT HU to mass density conversion curves were created based on the mean HU values of OARs and the corresponding mass density of the OAR in the PCT. Then, we compared our proposed conversion curve with the traditional Catphan phantom based CBCT HU to mass density calibration curve. Both curves were input into the treatment planning system (TPS) for dose calculation. Last, the PTV and OAR doses, DVH and dose distributions of CBCT plans are compared to the original treatment plan. Results: One head-and-neck cases which contained a pair of PCT and CBCT was used. The dose differences between the PCT and CBCT plans using the proposed method are −1.33% for the mean PTV, 0.06% for PTV D95%, and −0.56% for the left neck. The dose differences between plans of PCT and CBCT corrected using the CATPhan based method are −4.39% for mean PTV, 4.07% for PTV D95%, and −2.01% for the left neck. Conclusion: The proposed CBCT HU correction method achieves better agreement with the original treatment plan compared to the traditional CATPhan based calibration method.« less
  • Purpose: In this study, two commercially available programs were compared for the evaluation of delivered daily dose using cone beam CT (CBCT). Methods: Thirty (n=30) patients previously treated in our clinic (10 prostate, 10 SBRT lung and 10 abdomen) were used in this study. The patients' plans were optimized and calculated using the Pinnacle treatment planning system. The daily CBCT scans were imported into Velocity and RayStation along with the corresponding planning CTs, structure sets and 3D dose distributions for each patient. The organs at risk (OAR) were contoured on each CBCT by the prescribing physician and were included inmore » the evaluation of the daily delivered dose. Each CBCT was registered to the planning CT, once with rigid registration and then again, separately, with deformable registration. After registering each CBCT, the dose distribution from the planning CT was overlaid and the dose volume histograms (DVH) for the OAR and the planning target volumes (PTV) were calculated. Results: For prostate patients, we observed daily volume changes for the OARs. The DVH analysis for those patients showed variation in the sparing of the OARs while PTV coverage remained virtually unchanged using both Velocity and RayStation systems. Similar results were observed for abdominal patients. In contrast, for SBRT lung patients, the DVH for the OARs and target were comparable to those from the initial treatment plan. Differences in organ volume and organ doses were also observed when comparing the daily fractions using deformable and rigid registrations. Conclusion: By using daily CBCT dose reconstruction, we proved PTV coverage for prostate and abdominal targets is adequate. However, there is significant dosimetric change for the OARs. For lung SBRT patients, the delivered daily dose for both PTV and OAR is comparable to the planned dose with no significant differences.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study is to convert pixel values in cone-beam CT (CBCT) using histograms of pixel values in the simulation CT (sim-CT) and the CBCT images and to evaluate the accuracy of dose calculation based on the CBCT. Methods: The sim-CT and CBCT images immediately before the treatment of 10 prostate cancer patients were acquired. Because of insufficient calibration of the pixel values in the CBCT, it is difficult to be directly used for dose calculation. The pixel values in the CBCT images were converted using an in-house program. A 7 fields treatment plans (original plan) createdmore » on the sim-CT images were applied to the CBCT images and the dose distributions were re-calculated with same monitor units (MUs). These prescription doses were compared with those of original plans. Results: In the results of the pixel values conversion in the CBCT images,the mean differences of pixel values for the prostate,subcutaneous adipose, muscle and right-femur were −10.78±34.60, 11.78±41.06, 29.49±36.99 and 0.14±31.15 respectively. In the results of the calculated doses, the mean differences of prescription doses for 7 fields were 4.13±0.95%, 0.34±0.86%, −0.05±0.55%, 1.35±0.98%, 1.77±0.56%, 0.89±0.69% and 1.69±0.71% respectively and as a whole, the difference of prescription dose was 1.54±0.4%. Conclusion: The dose calculation on the CBCT images achieve an accuracy of <2% by using this pixel values conversion program. This may enable implementation of efficient adaptive radiotherapy.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate the accuracy of the dose calculation of On-Board Imager (Varian, Palo Alto, CA) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with deformable image registration (DIR), using the multilevel-threshold (MLT) algorithm and histogram matching (HM) algorithm in pelvic radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: One pelvis phantom and 10 patients with prostate cancer treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy were studied. To minimize the effect of organ deformation and different Hounsfield unit values between planning CT (PCT) and CBCT, we modified CBCT (mCBCT) with DIR by using the MLT (mCBCT{sub MLT}) and HM (mCBCT{sub HM})more » algorithms. To evaluate the accuracy of the dose calculation, we compared dose differences in dosimetric parameters (mean dose [D{sub mean}], minimum dose [D{sub min}], and maximum dose [D{sub max}]) for planning target volume, rectum, and bladder between PCT (reference) and CBCTs or mCBCTs. Furthermore, we investigated the effect of organ deformation compared with DIR and rigid registration (RR). We determined whether dose differences between PCT and mCBCTs were significantly lower than in CBCT by using Student t test. Results: For patients, the average dose differences in all dosimetric parameters of CBCT with DIR were smaller than those of CBCT with RR (eg, rectum; 0.54% for DIR vs 1.24% for RR). For the mCBCTs with DIR, the average dose differences in all dosimetric parameters were less than 1.0%. Conclusions: We evaluated the accuracy of the dose calculation in CBCT, mCBCT{sub MLT}, and mCBCT{sub HM} with DIR for 10 patients. The results showed that dose differences in D{sub mean}, D{sub min}, and D{sub max} in mCBCTs were within 1%, which were significantly better than those in CBCT, especially for the rectum (P<.05). Our results indicate that the mCBCT{sub MLT} and mCBCT{sub HM} can be useful for improving the dose calculation for adaptive radiation therapy.« less
  • Purpose: The intensive use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) during radiotherapy treatments raise some questions about the dose to healthy tissues delivered during image acquisitions. We hence developed a Monte Carlo (MC)-based tool to predict doses to organs delivered by the Elekta XVI kV-CBCT. This work aims at assessing the dosimetric accuracy of the MC tool, in all tissue types. Methods: The kV-CBCT MC model was developed using the PENELOPE code. The beam properties were validated against measured lateral and depth dose profiles in water, and energy spectra measured with a CdTe detector. The CBCT simulator accuracy then required verificationmore » in clinical conditions. For this, we compared calculated and experimental dose values obtained with OSL nanoDots and XRQA2 films inserted in CIRS anthropomorphic phantoms (male, female, and 5-year old child). Measurements were performed at different locations, including bone and lung structures, and for several acquisition protocols: lung, head-and-neck, and pelvis. OSLs and film measurements were corrected when possible for energy dependence, by taking into account for spectral variations between calibration and measurement conditions. Results: Comparisons between measured and MC dose values are summarized in table 1. A mean difference of 8.6% was achieved for OSLs when the energy correction was applied, and 89.3% of the 84 dose points were within uncertainty intervals, including those in bones and lungs. Results with XRQA2 are not as good, because incomplete information about electronic equilibrium in film layers hampered the application of a simple energy correction procedure. Furthermore, measured and calculated doses (Fig.1) are in agreement with the literature. Conclusion: The MC-based tool developed was validated with an extensive set of measurements, and enables the organ dose calculation with accuracy. It can now be used to compute and report doses to organs for clinical cases, and also to drive strategies to optimize imaging protocols.« less