Automatic Mapping of CT Scan Locations on Computational Human Phantoms for Organ Dose Estimation.

To develop an algorithm to automatically map CT scan locations of patients onto computational human phantoms to provide with patient-specific organ doses. We developed an algorithm that compares a two-dimensional skeletal mask generated from patient CTs with that of a whole body computational human phantom. The algorithm selected the scan locations showing the highest Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) calculated between the skeletal masks of a patient and a phantom. To test the performance of the algorithm, we randomly selected five sets of neck, chest, and abdominal CT images from the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. We first automatically mapped scan locations of the CT images on a computational human phantom using our algorithm. We had several radiologists to manually map the same CT images on the phantom and compared the results with the automated mapping. Finally, organ doses for automated and manual mapping locations were calculated by an in-house CT dose calculator and compared to each other. The visual comparison showed excellent agreement between manual and automatic mapping locations for neck, chest, and abdomen-pelvis CTs. The difference in mapping locations averaged over the start and end in the five patients was less than 1 cm for all neck, chest, and AP scans: 0.9, 0.7, and 0.9 cm for neck, chest, and AP scans, respectively. Five cases out of ten in the neck scans show zero difference between the average manual and automatic mappings. Average of absolute dose differences between manual and automatic mappings was 2.3, 2.7, and 4.0% for neck, chest, and AP scans, respectively. The automatic mapping algorithm provided accurate scan locations and organ doses compared to manual mapping. The algorithm will be useful in cases requiring patient-specific organ dose for a large number of patients such as patient dose monitoring, clinical trials, and epidemiologic studies.

Comparison of normal tissue dose calculation methods for epidemiological studies of radiotherapy patients.

Radiation dosimetry is an essential input for epidemiological studies of radiotherapy patients aimed at quantifying the dose-response relationship of late-term morbidity and mortality. Individualised organ dose must be estimated for all tissues of interest located in-field, near-field, or out-of-field. Whereas conventional measurement approaches are limited to points in water or anthropomorphic phantoms, computational approaches using patient images or human phantoms offer greater flexibility and can provide more detailed three-dimensional dose information. In the current study, we systematically compared four different dose calculation algorithms so that dosimetrists and epidemiologists can better understand the advantages and limitations of the various approaches at their disposal. The four dose calculations algorithms considered were as follows: the (1) Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and (2) Acuros XB algorithm (Acuros XB), as implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS); (3) a Monte Carlo radiation transport code, EGSnrc; and (4) an accelerated Monte Carlo code, the x-ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC). The four algorithms were compared in terms of their accuracy and appropriateness in the context of dose reconstruction for epidemiological investigations. Accuracy in peripheral dose was evaluated first by benchmarking the calculated dose profiles against measurements in a homogeneous water phantom. Additional simulations in a heterogeneous cylinder phantom evaluated the performance of the algorithms in the presence of tissue heterogeneity. In general, we found that the algorithms contained within the commercial TPS (AAA and Acuros XB) were fast and accurate in-field or near-field, but not acceptable out-of-field. Therefore, the TPS is best suited for epidemiological studies involving large cohorts and where the organs of interest are located in-field or partially in-field. The EGSnrc and XVMC codes showed excellent agreement with measurements both in-field and out-of-field. The EGSnrc code was the most accurate dosimetry approach, but was too slow to be used for large-scale epidemiological cohorts. The XVMC code showed similar accuracy to EGSnrc, but was significantly faster, and thus epidemiological applications seem feasible, especially when the organs of interest reside far away from the field edge.

A Novel Method to Extend a Partial-Body CT for the Reconstruction of Dose to Organs beyond the Scan Range.

Epidemiological investigation is an important approach to assessing the risk of late effects after radiotherapy, and organ dosimetry is a crucial part of such analysis. Computed tomography (CT) images, if available, can be a valuable resource for individualizing the dosimetry, because they describe the specific anatomy of the patient. However, CT images acquired for radiation treatment planning purposes cover only a portion of the body near the target volume, whereas for epidemiology, the interest lies in the more distant normal tissues, which may be located outside the scan range. To address this challenge, we developed a novel method, called the Anatomically Predictive Extension (APE), to extend a partial-body CT image stack using images of a computational human phantom matched to the patient based on their height and weight. To test our method, we created five APE phantoms from chest and abdominal images extracted from the chest-abdomen-pelvis (CAP) CT scans of five patients. Organ doses were calculated for simple chest and prostate irradiations that were planned on the reference computational phantom (assumed patient geometry if no CT images are available), APE phantoms (patient-phantom hybrid given a partial-body patient CT) and full patient CAP CT scans (ground truth). The APE phantoms and patient CAP CT scans resulted in nearly identical dosimetry for those organs that were fully included in the partial-body CT used to construct the APE. The calculated doses to these same organs in the reference phantoms differed by up to 20% and 52% for the chest and prostate cases, respectively. For organs outside the scan coverage, the reference phantom showed, on average, dose differences of 31% (chest case) and 41% (prostate case). For the APE phantoms, these values were 26% (chest) and 17% (prostate). The APE method combines patient and phantom images to improve organ dosimetry both inside and outside the scan range. We intend to use the APE method for estimating dose for organs peripheral to the treatment fields; however, this method is quite generalizable with many potential applications.