Evaluation of two commercial CT metal artifact reduction algorithms for use in proton radiotherapy treatment planning in the head and neck area.

PURPOSE: To evaluate two commercial CT metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms for use in proton treatment planning in the head and neck (H&N) area. METHODS: An anthropomorphic head phantom with removable metallic implants (dental fillings or neck implant) was CT-scanned to evaluate the O-MAR (Philips) and the iMAR (Siemens) algorithms. Reference images were acquired without any metallic implants in place. Water equivalent thickness (WET) was calculated for different path directions and compared between image sets. Images were also evaluated for use in proton treatment planning for parotid, tonsil, tongue base, and neck node targets. The beams were arranged so as to not traverse any metal prior to the target, enabling evaluation of the impact on dose calculation accuracy from artifacts surrounding the metal volume. Plans were compared based on γ analysis (1 mm distance-to-agreement/1% difference in local dose) and dose volume histogram metrics for targets and organs at risk (OARs). Visual grading evaluation of 30 dental implant patient MAR images was performed by three radiation oncologists. RESULTS: In the dental fillings images, ΔWET along a low-density streak was reduced from -17.0 to -4.3 mm with O-MAR and from -16.1 mm to -2.3 mm with iMAR, while for other directions the deviations were increased or approximately unchanged when the MAR algorithms were used. For the neck implant images, ΔWET was generally reduced with MAR but residual deviations remained (of up to -2.3 mm with O-MAR and of up to -1.5 mm with iMAR). The γ analysis comparing proton dose distributions for uncorrected/MAR plans and corresponding reference plans showed passing rates >98% of the voxels for all phantom plans. However, substantial dose differences were seen in areas of most severe artifacts (γ passing rates of down to 89% for some cases). MAR reduced the deviations in some cases, but not for all plans. For a single patient case dosimetrically evaluated, minor dose differences were seen between the uncorrected and MAR plans (γ passing rate approximately 97%). The visual grading of patient images showed that MAR significantly improved image quality (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: O-MAR and iMAR significantly improved image quality in terms of anatomical visualization for target and OAR delineation in dental implant patient images. WET calculations along several directions, all outside the metallic regions, showed that both uncorrected and MAR images contained metal artifacts which could potentially lead to unacceptable errors in proton treatment planning. ΔWET was reduced by MAR in some areas, while increased or unchanged deviations were seen for other path directions. The proton treatment plans created for the phantom images showed overall acceptable dose distributions differences when compared to the reference cases, both for the uncorrected and MAR images. However, substantial dose distribution differences in the areas of most severe artifacts were seen for some plans, which were reduced by MAR in some cases but not all. In conclusion, MAR could be beneficial to use for proton treatment planning; however, case-by-case evaluations of the metal artifact-degraded images are always recommended.

Portal dose image verification: the collapsed cone superposition method applied with different electronic portal imaging devices.

Two different commercial electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs), one based on a liquid ion chamber matrix and the other based on a fluoroscopic CCD camera, were used to acquire readings that, through a calibration procedure, provided images proportional to the absolute dose to a virtual water slab located at the EPID plane. The transformation of the matrix ion chamber image into a portal dose image (PDI) was based on a published relationship between dose rate and ionization current. For the fluoroscopic CCD-camera-based system, the transformation was based on a deconvolution with a radial light scatter kernel. Local response variations were corrected in the images from both systems using open field fluence maps. The acquired PDIs were compared with PDIs calculated with the collapsed cone superposition method for a three-dimensional detector model in water equivalent buildup material. The calculation model was based on the beam modelling and geometrical description of the treatment unit and energy used for treatment planning in a kernel-based system. The validity of the calculation method was evaluated for several field shapes and thicknesses of patient phantoms for the matrix ion chamber at 6 MV x-rays and for the camera-based EPID at 6 and 15 MV x-rays. The agreement between predicted and measured PDIs was evaluated with dose comparisons at points of interest and gamma index calculations. The average area failing the passing criteria in dose and position deviation was analysed to validate the performance of the method. For the matrix ion chamber on average an area less than 1% fails the passing criteria of 3 mm and 3%. For the camera-based EPID, the average area is 7% and 1% for 6 and 15 MV, respectively. The overall agreement centrally in the fields was 0.1 +/- 1.6% (1 sd) for the camera-based EPID and -0.1 +/- 1.6% (1 sd) for the matrix ion chamber. Thus, an absolute dose calibrated EPID could validate the delivered dose to the patient by comparing a calculated and a measured PDI.

Portal dose image verification: formalism and application of the collapsed cone superposition method.

A formalism tailored for portal dose image verification is proposed to facilitate the comparison of calculated and measured portal dose distributions. Each portal image is converted into a dose proportional image and normalized to the reference beam calibration dose per monitor unit. The calculated or measured dose to a detector phantom is accordingly normalized so as to enable direct comparison. The collapsed cone kernel superposition method is adapted and evaluated for calculation of portal dose distributions in a water-equivalent detector phantom through comparisons with Monte Carlo calculations and with measurements. The deviation compared with Monte Carlo calculations for 6 and 15 MV was between +0.9% (the 0.9 quantile) and -2.1% (the 0.1 quantile) for a range of investigated geometries. Collapsed cone calculations compared with measurements for clinical fields agreed within [-1.9%, +2.4%] for 15 MV and [-0.9%, +3.2%] for 6 MV for the 0.1 and 0.9 quantiles, respectively. Hence, the absolute portal dose to a detector phantom could be calculated and verified well within the present accuracy requirements for clinical dose calculations.