Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=29479821
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\29479821
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 J+Appl+Clin+Med+Phys
2018 ; 19
(2
): 249-257
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Patient-specific calibration of cone-beam computed tomography data sets for
radiotherapy dose calculations and treatment plan assessment
#MMPMID29479821
MacFarlane M
; Wong D
; Hoover DA
; Wong E
; Johnson C
; Battista JJ
; Chen JZ
J Appl Clin Med Phys
2018[Mar]; 19
(2
): 249-257
PMID29479821
show ga
PURPOSE: In this work, we propose a new method of calibrating cone beam computed
tomography (CBCT) data sets for radiotherapy dose calculation and plan
assessment. The motivation for this patient-specific calibration (PSC) method is
to develop an efficient, robust, and accurate CBCT calibration process that is
less susceptible to deformable image registration (DIR) errors. METHODS: Instead
of mapping the CT numbers voxel-by-voxel with traditional DIR calibration
methods, the PSC methods generates correlation plots between deformably
registered planning CT and CBCT voxel values, for each image slice. A linear
calibration curve specific to each slice is then obtained by least-squares
fitting, and applied to the CBCT slice's voxel values. This allows each CBCT
slice to be corrected using DIR without altering the patient geometry through
regional DIR errors. A retrospective study was performed on 15 head-and-neck
cancer patients, each having routine CBCTs and a middle-of-treatment re-planning
CT (reCT). The original treatment plan was re-calculated on the patient's reCT
image set (serving as the gold standard) as well as the image sets produced by
voxel-to-voxel DIR, density-overriding, and the new PSC calibration methods. Dose
accuracy of each calibration method was compared to the reference reCT data set
using common dose-volume metrics and 3D gamma analysis. A phantom study was also
performed to assess the accuracy of the DIR and PSC CBCT calibration methods
compared with planning CT. RESULTS: Compared with the gold standard using reCT,
the average dose metric differences were ? 1.1% for all three methods (PSC:
-0.3%; DIR: -0.7%; density-override: -1.1%). The average gamma pass rates with
thresholds 3%, 3 mm were also similar among the three techniques (PSC: 95.0%;
DIR: 96.1%; density-override: 94.4%). CONCLUSIONS: An automated patient-specific
calibration method was developed which yielded strong dosimetric agreement with
the results obtained using a re-planning CT for head-and-neck patients.