Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
First evaluation of in-patient dose calculation accuracy on a C-arm Linear Accelerator with advanced Cone-Beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gregg Kenneth W, Arsenault Theodore, Regmi Sagar, O'Carroll Kyle, Guevara Beatriz, Xing Meiying, Woods Runyon, Rezaei Atefeh, Kashani Rojano, Henke Lauren, Price Alex
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Innovations in on-board Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) show promise for accurate dose calculation due to higher CT number precision compared to prior C-arm CBCT systems. We prospectively investigated dose calculation accuracy in patients imaged using a C-arm linac equipped with an advanced CBCT imaging solution utilizing iterative reconstruction algorithms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For image acquisition, 37 patients underwent both a CT-simulation (CT-sim) and high-quality C-arm CBCT in their treatment position. A total of 39 plans (2 patients multi-site) across four body sites (10 Head/Neck, 9 Thorax, 10 Abdomen, 10 Pelvis) were developed on the clinical CT-sim image and recalculated on the CBCT. Dose distributions were compared using 3D gamma analysis passing rates (GPR) using 1%/1mm local criteria and 10% or 50% low-dose thresholding (10%TH, 50%TH). Percent difference in target dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics D99%, Dmean, D1%, V100%, and V95% were calculated for comparison.
RESULTS: The CBCT to CT-sim dose calculation comparisons overall GPR with 10%TH averaged 96.2 ± 3.6% and 50%TH GPR average was 95.0 ± 6.9%. Overall, 36 plans at 10%TH and 32 plans at 50%TH achieved > 90% GPR. Percent difference in target DVH metrics averaged 0.15 ± 1.24%, 0.52 ± 1.01%, 0.86 ± 1.29%, -0.92 ± 4.84%, and -0.31 ± 2.42% for D99%, Dmean, D1%, V100%, and V95%, respectively. Only 9 of 195 (4.6%) target DVH metrics changed by > 5%.
CONCLUSION: C-arm CBCT dose calculation was comparable to standard-of-care CT-sim in most patients, demonstrating the ability to be used for clinical evaluation and decisions. Direct dose calculations in settings of minimal anatomical motion were most robust.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For image acquisition, 37 patients underwent both a CT-simulation (CT-sim) and high-quality C-arm CBCT in their treatment position. A total of 39 plans (2 patients multi-site) across four body sites (10 Head/Neck, 9 Thorax, 10 Abdomen, 10 Pelvis) were developed on the clinical CT-sim image and recalculated on the CBCT. Dose distributions were compared using 3D gamma analysis passing rates (GPR) using 1%/1mm local criteria and 10% or 50% low-dose thresholding (10%TH, 50%TH). Percent difference in target dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics D99%, Dmean, D1%, V100%, and V95% were calculated for comparison.
RESULTS: The CBCT to CT-sim dose calculation comparisons overall GPR with 10%TH averaged 96.2 ± 3.6% and 50%TH GPR average was 95.0 ± 6.9%. Overall, 36 plans at 10%TH and 32 plans at 50%TH achieved > 90% GPR. Percent difference in target DVH metrics averaged 0.15 ± 1.24%, 0.52 ± 1.01%, 0.86 ± 1.29%, -0.92 ± 4.84%, and -0.31 ± 2.42% for D99%, Dmean, D1%, V100%, and V95%, respectively. Only 9 of 195 (4.6%) target DVH metrics changed by > 5%.
CONCLUSION: C-arm CBCT dose calculation was comparable to standard-of-care CT-sim in most patients, demonstrating the ability to be used for clinical evaluation and decisions. Direct dose calculations in settings of minimal anatomical motion were most robust.