Dosimetric evaluation of an atlas‐based synthetic CT generation approach for MR‐only radiotherapy of pelvis anatomy. Issue 1 (26th November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Farjam, Reza; Tyagi, Neelam; Deasy, Joseph O.; Hunt, Margie A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 20:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 101
• Page End: 109
• Publication Date: 2018-11-26
• Subjects: bone‐ and fat‐suppressed CT -- generalized registration error -- pelvis anatomy -- synthetic CT; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12501
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To investigate the potential of an atlas‐based approach in generation of synthetic CT for pelvis anatomy. Methods: Twenty‐three matched pairs of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were selected from a pool of prostate cancer patients. All MR scans were preprocessed to reduce scanner‐ and patient‐induced intensity inhomogeneities and to standardize their intensity histograms. Ten (training dataset) of 23 pairs were then utilized to construct the coregistered CT‐MR atlas. The synthetic CT for a new patient is generated by appropriately weighting the deformed atlas of CT‐MR onto the new patient MRI. The training dataset was used as an atlas to generate the synthetic CT for the rest of the patients (test dataset). The mean absolute error (MAE) between the deformed planning CT and synthetic CT was computed over the entire CT image, bone, fat, and muscle tissues. The original treatment plans were also recomputed on the new synthetic CTs and dose–volume histogram metrics were compared. The results were compared with a commercially available synthetic CT Software (MRCAT) that is routinely used in our clinic. Results: MAE errors (±SD) between the deformed planning CT and our proposed synthetic CTs in the test dataset were 47 ± 5, 116 ± 12, 36 ± 6, and 47 ± 5 HU for the entire image, bone, fat, and muscle tissues respectively. The MAEs were 65 ± 5, 172 ± 9, 43 ± 7, and 42 ± 4 HU for the corresponding tissues in MRCAT CT. The dosimetric comparison showed consistent results for all plans using our synthetic CT, deformed planning CT and MRCAT CT. Conclusion: We investigated the potential of a multiatlas approach to generate synthetic CT images for the pelvis. Our results demonstrate excellent results in terms of HU value assignment compared to the original CT and dosimetric consistency.