Consensus guide on CT-based prediction of stopping-power ratio using a Hounsfield look-up table for proton therapy

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftForschungsartikelBeigetragenBegutachtung

Beitragende

  • Nils Peters - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Technische Universität Dresden, Harvard University (Autor:in)
  • Vicki Trier Taasti - , Maastricht University (Autor:in)
  • Benjamin Ackermann - , Universität Heidelberg (Autor:in)
  • Alessandra Bolsi - , Paul Scherrer Institute (Autor:in)
  • Christina Vallhagen Dahlgren - , Skandionkliniken (Autor:in)
  • Malte Ellerbrock - , Universität Heidelberg (Autor:in)
  • Francesco Fracchiolla - , Provincia Autonoma di Trento (Autor:in)
  • Carles Gomà - , Universitat de Barcelona (Autor:in)
  • Joanna Góra - , MedAustron (Autor:in)
  • Patricia Cambraia Lopes - , HollandPTC (Autor:in)
  • Ilaria Rinaldi - , Maastricht University (Autor:in)
  • Koen Salvo - , AZ Sint-Maarten (Autor:in)
  • Ivanka Sojat Tarp - , Universität Aarhus (Autor:in)
  • Alessandro Vai - , CNAO National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (Autor:in)
  • Thomas Bortfeld - , Harvard University (Autor:in)
  • Antony Lomax - , Paul Scherrer Institute (Autor:in)
  • Christian Richter - , OncoRay - Nationales Zentrum für Strahlenforschung in der Onkologie, Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ) (Autor:in)
  • Patrick Wohlfahrt - , Harvard University (Autor:in)

Abstract

Background and purpose: Studies have shown large variations in stopping-power ratio (SPR) prediction from computed tomography (CT) across European proton centres. To standardise this process, a step-by-step guide on specifying a Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) is presented here. Materials and methods: The HLUT specification process is divided into six steps: Phantom setup, CT acquisition, CT number extraction, SPR determination, HLUT specification, and HLUT validation. Appropriate CT phantoms have a head- and body-sized part, with tissue-equivalent inserts in regard to X-ray and proton interactions. CT numbers are extracted from a region-of-interest covering the inner 70% of each insert in-plane and several axial CT slices in scan direction. For optimal HLUT specification, the SPR of phantom inserts is measured in a proton beam and the SPR of tabulated human tissues is computed stoichiometrically at 100 MeV. Including both phantom inserts and tabulated human tissues increases HLUT stability. Piecewise linear regressions are performed between CT numbers and SPRs for four tissue groups (lung, adipose, soft tissue, and bone) and then connected with straight lines. Finally, a thorough but simple validation is performed. Results: The best practices and individual challenges are explained comprehensively for each step. A well-defined strategy for specifying the connection points between the individual line segments of the HLUT is presented. The guide was tested exemplarily on three CT scanners from different vendors, proving its feasibility. Conclusion: The presented step-by-step guide for CT-based HLUT specification with recommendations and examples can contribute to reduce inter-centre variations in SPR prediction.

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Aufsatznummer109675
FachzeitschriftRadiotherapy and oncology
Jahrgang184
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - Juli 2023
Peer-Review-StatusJa

Externe IDs

PubMed 37084884
ORCID /0000-0003-4261-4214/work/146644856
WOS 001010874600001

Schlagworte

Schlagwörter

  • Hounsfield look-up table, Proton range prediction, Proton therapy, Single-energy CT, Stoichiometric calibration, Stopping-power ratio, Hounsfield look -up table, Stopping -power ratio, Single -energy CT, Protons, Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods, Humans, Proton Therapy/methods, Calibration, Consensus, Phantoms, Imaging