Free automatic software for quality assurance of computed tomography calibration, edges and radiomics metrics reproducibility.

PURPOSE: To develop a QA procedure, easy to use, reproducible and based on open-source code, to automatically evaluate the stability of different metrics extracted from CT images: Hounsfield Unit (HU) calibration, edge characterization metrics (contrast and drop range) and radiomic features. METHODS: The QA protocol was based on electron density phantom imaging. Home-made open-source Python code was developed for the automatic computation of the metrics and their reproducibility analysis. The impact on reproducibility was evaluated for different radiation therapy protocols, and phantom positions within the field of view and systems, in terms of variability (Shapiro-Wilk test for 15 repeated measurements carried out over three days) and comparability (Bland-Altman analysis and Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test or Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient). RESULTS: Regarding intrinsic variability, most metrics followed a normal distribution (88% of HU, 63% of edge parameters and 82% of radiomic features). Regarding comparability, HU and contrast were comparable in all conditions, and drop range only in the same CT scanner and phantom position. The percentages of comparable radiomic features independent of protocol, position and system were 59%, 78% and 54%, respectively. The non-significantly differences in HU calibration curves obtained for two different institutions (7%) translated in comparable Gamma Index G (1 mm, 1%, >99%). CONCLUSIONS: An automated software to assess the reproducibility of different CT metrics was successfully created and validated. A QA routine proposal is suggested.

Evaluation of intrafraction motion with an open immobilization mask for HyperArc treatment of multiple brain metastases.

Purpose: In the implementation of the use of EncompassTM partially open immobilization mask to perform SRS of multiple brain metastasis, the evaluation of patient's intrafraction motion (IM) is deemed convenient to verify that the margins applied to the GTV are able to ensure adequate dose coverage to each lesion. Methods: IM was determined by comparing the pre- and post-treatment CBCT images with respect to the simulation CT for a total of 23 fractions. The dosimetric impact on GTV coverage due to translational errors in patient positioning and rotational uncertainties of LINAC's performance was also evaluated. Results: The absolute magnitude of IM was less than 1 mm in all cases. The dosimetric difference on GTV coverage due to patient's IM was inferior to 5%. There was not found any significant correlation between the dosimetric impact of rotational uncertainties with the distance to the isocenter. Conclusion: The margins applied to the GTV are adequate when using EncompassTM immobilization device.