Copenhagen, Denmark
Onsite/Online

ESTRO 2022

Session Item

Monday
May 09
14:15 - 15:15
Poster Station 1
21: Implementation of new technology & techniques
Sebastian Klüter, Germany
Poster Discussion
Physics
Evaluation of a novel CBCT conversion method
Gerd Heilemann, Austria
PD-0901

Abstract

Evaluation of a novel CBCT conversion method
Authors:

Wolfgang Lechner1, Sarah Haupt1, David Kanalas2, Lukas Zimmermann3, Dietmar Georg1

1Medical University of Vienna, Department of Radiation Oncology, Vienna, Austria; 2University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, WIener Neustadt, Austria; 3University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Wiener Neustadt, Austria

Show Affiliations
Purpose or Objective

To evaluate a novel implementation of a CBCT conversion algorithm for dose calculation implemented in RayStation (Development Version 10B-DTK, RaySearch, Stockholm, Sweden). The algorithm uses deformable registration to correlate grey scale intensity values with an intensity conversion function. The algorithm is able to estimate artifacts and create a CBCT correction map. Additionally, the algorithm uses a stitching technique to simulate missing tissue outside the field of view (FOV) of the CBCT.

Material and Methods

CBCTs acquired for ten head and neck and ten gynecological patients were collected and converted using the new algorithm (CBCTc). A bulk density overriding technique implemented in the same version of RayStation was used for comparison (CBCTb). The CBCTs and the planning-CT (pCT) were rigidly registered. Clinical treatment plans, which were optimized on the pCT, were recalculated on both the CBCTc and the CBCTb. The resulting dose distributions were analyzed utilizing the MICE toolkit (NONPIMedical AB Sweden, Umeå) applying local gamma analysis with 1% dose difference and 1 mm distance to agreement criteria. For both CBCT conversion methods, the pCT was used as ground truth. Four different dose threshold level were used for the analysis: 10%, 30%, 50 % and 90%. The 90% threshold was selected to assess the high dose region around the PTV. A paired student’s t-test was applied to test the differences in gamma pass rates (GPRs) between the CBCTc and CBCTb method. A p-value smaller than 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

Figure 1 and 2 show box-plots of the GPRs grouped by conversion method and threshold for the head and neck and gynecological cases, respectively. On average, the CBCTc method showed GPRs higher than 95% for all indications and thresholds. The GPRs for the CBCTb method were systematically lower compared to the CBCTc method. These differences were also statistically significant for all test cases and thresholds. The main differences between the dose calculated on the CBCTs and the pCT were found in regions where weight loss occured frequently or at air/tissue interfaces, which were also subject to anatomical variations. For both indications, the stitching technique of the new CBCTc algorithm provided a reasonable approximation of the missing tissue outside the FOV of the CBCT. Consequently, better agreement could be achieved between the dose calculated on the pCT and the CBCTc compared to CBCTb.

Conclusion
The dose distribution calculated using the new CBCTc method showed excellent agreement with the pCT based dose calculation, with superior accuracy compared to the CBCTb method. The main reasons for deviations of the calculated dose distribution were caused by anatomical variations between the pCT and the corrected CBCT. The clinical introduction of the novel CBCTc method will improve the accuracy of the dose estimation in adaptive radiotherapy workflows.