Evaluation of an a priori scatter correction algorithm for cone-beam computed tomography based range and dose calculations in proton therapy. (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Andersen, Andreas Gravgaard; Park, Yang-Kyun; Elstrøm, Ulrik Vindelev; Petersen, Jørgen Breede Baltzer; Sharp, Gregory C.; Winey, Brian; Dong, Lei; Muren, Ludvig Paul
• Is Part Of: Physics and imaging in radiation oncology. Volume 16(2020)
• Page Start: 89
• Page End: 94
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: Cone beam -- CB -- Cone beam computed tomography -- CBCT -- Scatter -- Scatter correction -- Shading correction -- A priori -- Proton -- Range -- Dose calculation -- Dose recalculation -- Adaptive proton therapy -- APT -- Inter-fractional motion management -- Cone beam projections -- Projections -- Water equivalent path length -- WEPL -- Beam hardening; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiation dosimetry -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Oncology -- Periodicals; 615.842
• DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2020.09.014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2405-6316

Abstract

Abstract: Background and purpose: Scatter correction of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) projections may enable accurate online dose-delivery estimations in photon and proton-based radiotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of scatter correction in CBCT-based proton range/dose calculations, in scans acquired in both proton and photon gantries. Material and methods: CBCT projections of a Catphan and an Alderson phantom were acquired on both a proton and a photon gantry. The scatter corrected CBCTs (corrCBCTs) and the clinical reconstructions (stdCBCTs) were compared against CTs rigidly registered to the CBCTs (rigidCTs). The CBCTs of the Catphan phantom were segmented by materials for CT number analysis. Water equivalent path length (WEPL) maps were calculated through the Alderson phantom while proton plans optimized on the rigidCT and recalculated on all CBCTs were compared in a gamma analysis. Results: In medium and high-density materials, the corrCBCT CT numbers were much closer to those of the rigidCT than the stdCBCTs. E.g. in the 50% bone segmentations the differences were reduced from above 300 HU (with stdCBCT) to around 60–70 HU (with corrCBCT). Differences in WEPL from the rigidCT were typically well below 5 mm for the corrCBCTs, compared to well above 10 mm for the stdCBCTs with the largest deviations in the head and thorax regions. Gamma pass rates (2%/2mm) when comparing CBCT-based dose re-calculations to rigidCT calculations were improved from around 80% (with stdCBCT) to mostly above 90% (with corrCBCT). Conclusion: Scatter correction leads to substantial artefact reductions, improving accuracy of CBCT-based proton range/dose calculations.