SU-E-J-72: Dosimetric Study of Cone-Beam CT-Based Radiation Treatment Planning Using a Patient-Specific Stepwise CT-Density Table

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

To assess dose calculation accuracy of cone-beam CT (CBCT) based treatment plans using a patient-specific stepwise CT-density conversion table in comparison to conventional CT-based treatment plans.

Methods:

Unlike CT-based treatment planning which use fixed CT-density table, this study used patient-specific CT-density table to minimize the errors in reconstructed mass densities due to the effects of CBCT Hounsfield unit (HU) uncertainties. The patient-specific CT-density table was a stepwise function which maps HUs to only 6 classes of materials with different mass densities: air (0.00121g/cm3), lung (0.26g/cm3), adipose (0.95g/cm3), tissue (1.05 g/cm3), cartilage/bone (1.6g/cm3), and other (3g/cm3). HU thresholds to define different materials were adjusted for each CBCT via best match with the known tissue types in these images. Dose distributions were compared between CT-based plans and CBCT-based plans (IMRT/VMAT) for four types of treatment sites: head and neck (HN), lung, pancreas, and pelvis. For dosimetric comparison, PTV mean dose in both plans were compared. A gamma analysis was also performed to directly compare dosimetry in the two plans.

Results:

Compared to CT-based plans, the differences for PTV mean dose were 0.1% for pelvis, 1.1% for pancreas, 1.8% for lung, and −2.5% for HN in CBCT-based plans. The gamma passing rate was 99.8% for pelvis, 99.6% for pancreas, and 99.3% for lung with 3%/3mm criteria, and 80.5% for head and neck with 5%/3mm criteria. Different dosimetry accuracy level was observed: 1% for pelvis, 3% for lung and pancreas, and 5% for head and neck.

Conclusion:

By converting CBCT data to 6 classes of materials for dose calculation, 3% of dose calculation accuracy can be achieved for anatomical sites studied here, except HN which had a 5% accuracy. CBCT-based treatment planning using a patient-specific stepwise CT-density table can facilitate the evaluation of dosimetry changes resulting from variation in patient anatomy.

Ancillary