Feasibility of CBCT‐based dose with a patient‐specific stepwise HU‐to‐density curve to determine time of replanning. (13th July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, Shifeng; Le, Quynh; Mutaf, Yildirim; Lu, Wei; Nichols, Elizabeth M.; Yi, Byong Yong; Leven, Tish; Prado, Karl L.; D'Souza, Warren D.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 18:Number 5(2017)
• Page Start: 64
• Page End: 69
• Publication Date: 2017-07-13
• Subjects: adaptive radiation therapy -- CBCT‐based dose calculation -- HU‐to‐density curve; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12127
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: (a) To investigate the accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT)–derived dose distributions relative to fanbeam–based simulation CT‐derived dose distributions; and (b) to study the feasibility of CBCT dosimetry for guiding the appropriateness of replanning. Methods and materials: Image data corresponding to 40 patients (10 head and neck [HN], 10 lung, 10 pancreas, 10 pelvis) who underwent radiation therapy were randomly selected. Each patient had both intensity‐modulated radiation therapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy plans; these 80 plans were subsequently recomputed on the CBCT images using a patient‐specific stepwise curve (Hounsfield units‐to‐density). Planning target volumes (PTVs; D98%, D95%, D2%), mean dose, and V95% were compared between simulation‐CT–derived treatment plans and CBCT‐based plans. Gamma analyses were performed using criterion of 3%/3 mm for three dose zones (>90%, 70%~90%, and 30%~70% of maximum dose). CBCT‐derived doses were then used to evaluate the appropriateness of replanning decisions in 12 additional HN patients whose plans were previously revised during radiation therapy because of anatomic changes; replanning in these cases was guided by the conventional observed source‐to‐skin‐distance change‐derived approach. Results: For all disease sites, the difference in PTV mean dose was 0.1% ± 1.1%, D2% was 0.7% ± 0.1%, D95% was 0.2% ± 1.1%, D98% was 0.2% ± 1.0%, and V95% was 0.3% ± 0.8%; For 3D dose comparison, 99.0% ± 1.9%, 97.6% ± 4.4%, and 95.3% ± 6.0% of points passed the 3%/3 mm criterion of gamma analysis in high‐, medium‐, and low‐dose zones, respectively. The CBCT images achieved comparable dose distributions. In the 12 previously replanned 12 HN patients, CBCT‐based dose predicted well changes in PTV D2% (Pearson linear correlation coefficient = 0.93; P < 0.001). If 3% of change is used as the replanning criteria, 7/12 patients could avoid replanning. Conclusions: CBCT‐based dose calculations produced accuracy comparable to that of simulation CT. CBCT‐based dosimetry can guide the decision to replan during the course of treatment.