Calcul de dose de radiothérapie à partir de tomographies coniques : état de l’art

Barateau, A.; Céleste, M.; Lafond, C.; Henry, Olivier; Couespel, S.; Simon, Antoine; Acosta, Oscar; Crevoisier, R. de; Périchon, N.

doi:10.1016/j.canrad.2017.12.002

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scholars have tried various correction methods, [12][13][14][15] including deformable registration methods, 16,17 machine learning and deep learning methods. [18][19][20] Richter et al 21 found that the HU value of CBCT images (Elekta XVI system) directly correlated with the scanning conditions. For different tumor sites, appropriate correction strategies should be considered regarding the accuracy of CBCT-based dose calculations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Dose Calculation Based on Cone-Beam CT Using Different Measuring Correction Methods for Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Gong

Liu

Zhang

et al. 2023

Technol Cancer Res Treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate and compare 2 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) correction methods for CBCT-based dose calculation. Materials and Methods: Routine CBCT image sets of 12 head and neck cancer patients who received volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment were retrospectively analyzed. The CBCT images obtained using an on-board imager (OBI) at the first treatment fraction were firstly deformable registered and padded with the kVCT images to provide enough anatomical information about the tissues for dose calculation. Then, 2 CBCT correction methods were developed and applied to correct CBCT Hounsfield unit (HU) values. One method (HD method) is based on protocol-specific CBCT HU to physical density (HD) curve, and the other method (HM method) is based on histogram matching (HM) of HU value. The corrected CBCT images (CBCTHD and CBCTHM for HD and HM methods) were imported into the original planning system for dose calculation based on the HD curve of kVCT (the planning CT). The dose computation result was analyzed and discussed to compare these 2 CBCT-correction methods. Results: Dosimetric parameters, such as the Dmean, Dmax and D5% of the target volume in CBCT plan doses, were higher than those in the kVCT plan doses; however, the deviations were less than 2%. The D2%, in parallel organs such as the parotid glands, the deviations from the CBCTHM plan dose were less than those of the CBCTHD plan dose. The differences were statistically significant ( P < .05). Meanwhile, the V30 value based on the HM method was better than that based on the HD method in the oral cavity region ( P = .016). In addition, we also compared the γ passing rates of kVCT plan doses with the 2 CBCT plan doses, and negligible differences were found. Conclusion: The HM method was more suitable for head and neck cancer patients than the HD one. Furthermore, with the CBCTHM-based method, the dose calculation result better matches the kVCT-based dose calculation.

show abstract