Systematic study of the iodinated rectal hydrogel spacer material discrepancy on accuracy of proton dosimetry. Issue 10 (15th September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hooshangnejad, Hamed; Han, Dong; Feng, Ziwei; Dong, Liang; Sun, Edward; Du, Kaifang; Ding, Kai
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 23:Issue 10(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-09-15
• Subjects: hydrogel spacer iodination -- neurovascular bundle -- proton dose discrepancy -- spacer‐enabled proton therapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13774
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Iodination of rectal hydrogel spacer increases the computed tomography (CT) visibility. The effect of iodinated hydrogel spacer material on the accuracy of proton dosimetry has not been fully studied yet. We presented a systematic study to determine the effect of iodination on proton dosimetry accuracy during proton therapy (PT). Methods: PT plans were designed for 20 prostate cancer patients with rectal hydrogel spacer. Three variations of hydrogel density were considered. First, as the ground truth, the true elemental composition of hydrogel true material (TM), verified by our measurement of spacer stopping power ratio, was used for plan optimization and Monte Carlo dose calculation. The dose distribution was recalculated with (1) no material (NM) override based on the CT intensity of the iodinated spacer, and (2) the water material (WM) override, where spacer material was replaced by water. The plans were compared with the ground truth using the metrics of gamma index (GI) and dosimetric indices. Results: The iodination of hydrogel spacer affected the proton dose distribution with the NM scenario showing the most deviation from the ground truth. The iodination of spacer resulted in a notable increase in CT intensity and led to the treatment planning systems mistreating the iodinated spacer as a high‐density material. Among the structures adjacent to the target, neurovascular bundles showed the largest dose difference, up to 350 cGy or about 5% of the prescribed dose with NM. Compared to the WM scenario, dose distribution similarity and GI passing ratios were lower in the NM scenario. Conclusion: The inaccurate CT intensity‐based material for iodinated spacer resulted in errors in PT dose calculation. We found that the error was negligible if the iodinated spacer was replaced with water. Water density can be used as a clinically accessible and convenient alternative material override to true spacer material.