Back
 IJMPCERO  Vol.7 No.2 , May 2018
Experimental Evaluation of CT Number Changes in 320-Row CBCT Volume Scan for Proton Range Calculation
Abstract: We investigated the longitudinal positional dependence of CT number in 320-row Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) volume scan (320-row volume scan) using a simple geometric phantom (SGP) and a chest simulation phantom (CSP) in order to evaluate its effect on proton range calculation. The SGP consisted of lung substitute material (LSM) and a cylindrical phantom (CP) made of high-density polyethylene. The CSP was an anthropomorphic phantom similar to the human chest. The two phantoms were scanned using 320-row volume scan in various longitudinal positions from the central beam axis. In experiments using the SGP, an image blur at the boundary of the two materials became gradually evident when the LSM was placed far away from the beam central axis. The image blur of the phantom was consistent with the gradation in CT number. The maximum difference in CT numbers between the 64-row helical scan and 320-row volume scan at the boundary of the two materials was consistent with approximately 50% of the relative proton stopping power. In contrast, the CT number profile in each longitudinal position was fairly consistent and longitudinal positional dependence rarely occurred in the CSP experiments. Pass lengths of CT beams through areas with widely different electron densities were shorter, and thus did not significantly impact CT numbers. Based on findings from the CSP experiments, we considered 320-row volume scan to be feasible for proton range calculation in clinical settings, although the relatively large longitudinal positional dependence of CT number should be accounted for when doing so.
Cite this paper: Hirai, R. , Kohno, R. , Kumazaki, Y. , Akimoto, T. , Saitoh, H. and Kato, S. (2018) Experimental Evaluation of CT Number Changes in 320-Row CBCT Volume Scan for Proton Range Calculation. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 7, 141-150. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.72012.
References

[1]   Tomizawa, N., Kanno, S., Maeda, E., Akahane, M., Torigoe, R. and Ohtomo, K. (2014) Minimizing the Acquisition Phase in Coronary CT Angiography Using the Second Generation 320-Row CT. Japanese Journal of Radiology, 32, 391-396.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-014-0321-1

[2]   Kikuchi, Y., Oyama-Manabe, N., Naya, M., Manabe, O., Tomiyama, Y., Sasaki, T., Katoh, C., Kudo, K., Tamaki, N. and Shirato, H. (2014) Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow Using Dynamic 320-Row Multi-Detector CT as Compared with 15O-H2O PET. European Radiology, 24, 1547-1556.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3164-3

[3]   Matsugi, K., Nakamura, M., Miyabe, Y., Yamauchi, C., Matsuo, Y., Mizowaki, T. and Hiraoka, M. (2013) Evaluation of 4D Dose to a Moving Target with Monte Carlo Dose Calculation in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer. Radiological Physics and Technology, 6, 233-240.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-012-0193-y

[4]   Li, H., Liu, W., Park, P., Matney, J., Liao, Z., Chang, J., Zhang, X., Li, Y. and Zhu, R.X. (2014) Evaluation of the Systematic Error in Using 3D Dose Calculation in Scanning Beam Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 15, 4810.
https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4810

[5]   Liu, W., Schild, S.E., Chang, J.Y., Liao, Z., Chang, Y., Wen, Z., Shen, J., Stoker, J.B., Ding, X., Hu, Y., Sahoo, N., Herman, M.G., Vargas, C., Keole, S., Wong, W. and Bues, M. (2016) Exploratory Study of 4D versus 3D Robust Optimization in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 95, 523-533.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.002

[6]   Coolens, C., Bracken, J., Driscoll, B., Hope, A. and Jaffray, D. (2012) Dynamic Volume vs Respiratory Correlated 4DCT for Motion Assessment in Radiation Therapy Simulation. Medical Physics, 39, 2669-2681.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4704498

[7]   Mori, S., Endo, M., Nishizawa, K., Tsunoo, T., Aoyama, T., Fujiwara, H. and Murase, K. (2005) Enlarged Longitudinal Dose Profiles in Cone-Beam CT and the Need for Modified Dosimetry. Medical Physics, 32, 1061-1069.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1877852

[8]   Coolens, C., Breen, S., Purdie, T.G., Owrangi, A., Publicover, J., Bartolac, S. and Jaffray, D.A. (2009) Implementation and Characterization of a 320-Slice Volumetric CT Scanner for Simulation in Radiation Oncology. Medical Physics, 36, 5120-5127.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3246352

[9]   Schneider, U., Pedroni, E. and Lomax, A. (1996) The Calibration of CT Hounsfield Units for Radiotherapy Treatment Planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 41, 111-124.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/41/1/009

[10]   Yohannes, I., Kolditz, D., Langner, O. and Kalender, W.A. (2012) A Formulation of Tissue- and Water-Equivalent Materials Using the Stoichiometric Analysis Method for CT-Number Calibration in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 57, 1173-1190.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/5/1173

[11]   Kanematsu, N., Matsufuji, N., Kohno, R., Minohara, S. and Kanai, T. (2003) A CT Calibration Method Based on the Polybinary Tissue Model for Radiotherapy Treatment Planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 48, 1053-1064.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/8/307

[12]   Inaniwa, T., Tashima, H. and Kanematsu, N. (2017) Optimum Size of a Calibration Phantom for x-Ray CT to Convert the Hounsfield Units to Stopping Power Ratios in Charged Particle Therapy Treatment Planning. Journal of Radiation Research, 1-9.

[13]   Schuemann, J., Dowdell, S., Grassberger, C., Min, C.H. and Paganetti, H. (2014) Site-Specific Range Uncertainties Caused by Dose Calculation Algorithms for Proton Therapy. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 59, 4007-4031.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/15/4007

[14]   Chvetsov, A.V. and Paige, S.L. (2010) The Influence of CT Image Noise on Proton range Calculation in Radiotherapy Planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 55, 141-149.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/6/N01

[15]   Yang, M., Zhu, S.R., Park, P.C., Titt, U., Mohan, R., Virshup, G., Clayton, J. and Dong, L. (2012) Comprehensive Analysis of Proton Range Uncertainties Related to Patient Stopping-Power-Ratio Estimation using the Stoichiometric Calibration. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 57, 4095-4115.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/13/4095

[16]   Schaffner, B. and Pedroni, E. (1998) The Precision of Proton Range Calculations in Proton Radiotherapy Treatment Planning: Experimental Verification of the Relation between CT-HU and Proton Stopping Power. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 43, 1579-1592.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/43/6/016

[17]   Espana, S. and Paganetti, H. (2011) Uncertainties in Planned Dose Due to the Limited Voxel Size of the Planning CT When Treating Lung Tumors with Proton Therapy. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 56, 3843-3856.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/13/007

[18]   Kumazaki, Y., Akagi, T., Yanou, T., Suga, D., Hishikawa, Y. and Teshima, T. (2007) Determination of the Mean Excitation Energy of Water from Proton Beam Ranges. Radiation Measurements, 42, 1683-1691.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2007.10.019

[19]   Kim, D.H., Cho, S., Jo, K., Shin, E., Hong, C.S., Han, Y., Suh, T.S., Lim, D.H. and Choi, D.H. (2018) Proton Range Verification in Inhomogeneous Tissue: Treatment Planning System vs. Measurement vs. Monte Carlo Simulation. PLoS ONE, 13, e0193904.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193904

 
 
Top