Inter-centre variability of CT-based stopping-power prediction in particle therapy: Survey-based evaluation. (April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Taasti, Vicki T.; Bäumer, Christian; Dahlgren, Christina V.; Deisher, Amanda J.; Ellerbrock, Malte; Free, Jeffrey; Gora, Joanna; Kozera, Anna; Lomax, Antony J.; De Marzi, Ludovic; Molinelli, Silvia; Kevin Teo, Boon-Keng; Wohlfahrt, Patrick; Petersen, Jørgen B.B.; Muren, Ludvig P.; Hansen, David C.; Richter, Christian
• Is Part Of: Physics and imaging in radiation oncology. Volume 6(2018)
• Page Start: 25
• Page End: 30
• Publication Date: 2018-04
• Subjects: Particle treatment planning -- Hounsfield look-up-table -- CT scan protocol -- Stopping-power ratio prediction -- Inter-centre comparison -- Dual-energy CT; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiation dosimetry -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Oncology -- Periodicals; 615.842
• DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.04.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2405-6316

Abstract

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.