Accuracy of dose calculation on iterative CBCT for head and neck radiotherapy. (June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Washio, Hayate; Ohira, Shingo; Funama, Yoshinori; Ueda, Yoshihiro; Isono, Masaru; Inui, Shoki; Miyazaki, Masayoshi; Teshima, Teruki
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 86(2021)
• Page Start: 106
• Page End: 112
• Publication Date: 2021-06
• Subjects: Iterative CBCT -- Dose calculation -- Adaptive radiation therapy -- Head and neck cancer; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.05.027
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

Highlights: Iterative CBCT can improve the accuracy of CBCT based dose calculation for H&N. The HU consistency is better for iterative CBCT than FDK via scatter correction. A CT to ED curve were created on FDK and iterative CBCT varying objects and imagers. The comparison in dosimetric calculations and gamma analysis was conducted. Abstract: Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of the use of iterative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dose calculation in the head and neck region. Methods: This study includes phantom and clinical studies. All acquired CBCT images were reconstructed with Feldkamp–Davis–Kress algorithm-based CBCT (FDK-CBCT) and iterative CBCT (iCBCT) algorithm. The Hounsfield unit (HU) consistency between the head and body phantoms was determined in both reconstruction techniques. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for 16 head and neck patients on a planning CT scan, and the doses were recalculated on FDK-CBCT and iCBCT with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB). As a comparison of the accuracy of dose calculations, the absolute dosimetric difference and 1%/1 mm gamma passing rate analysis were analyzed. Results: The difference in the mean HU values between the head and body phantoms was larger for FDK-CBCT (max value: 449.1 HU) than iCBCT (260.0 HU). The median dosimetric difference from the planning CT were <1.0% for both FDK-CBCT and iCBCT but smaller differences were found with iCBCT (planning target volume D50% : 0.38% (0.15–0.59%) for FDK-CBCT, 0.28% (0.13–0.49%) for iCBCT, AAA; 0.14% (0.04–0.19%) for FDK-CBCT, 0.07% (0.02–0.20%) for iCBCT). The mean gamma passing rate was significantly better in iCBCT than FDK-CBCT (AAA: 98.7% for FDK-CBCT, 99.4% for iCBCT; AXB: 96.8% for FDK_CBCT, 97.5% for iCBCT). Conclusion: The iCBCT-based dose calculation in VMAT for head and neck cancer was accurate compared to FDK-CBCT.