Monte Carlo proton dose calculations using a radiotherapy specific dual-energy CT scanner for tissue segmentation and range assessment.

ABSTRACT

Proton beam ranges derived from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) images from a dual-spiral radiotherapy (RT)-specific CT scanner were assessed using Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations. Images from a dual-source and a twin-beam DECT scanner were also used to establish a comparison to the RT-specific scanner. Proton ranges extracted from conventional single-energy CT (SECT) were additionally performed to benchmark against literature values. Using two phantoms, a DECT methodology was tested as input for Geant4 MC proton dose calculations. Proton ranges were calculated for different mono-energetic proton beams irradiating both phantoms; the results were compared to the ground truth based on the phantom compositions. The same methodology was applied in a head-and-neck cancer patient using both SECT and dual-spiral DECT scans from the RT-specific scanner. A pencil-beam-scanning plan was designed, which was subsequently optimized by MC dose calculations, and differences in proton range for the different image-based simulations were assessed. For phantoms, the DECT method yielded overall better material segmentation with >86% of the voxel correctly assigned for the dual-spiral and dual-source scanners, but only 64% for a twin-beam scanner. For the calibration phantom, the dual-spiral scanner yielded range errors below 1.2 mm (0.6% of range), like the errors yielded by the dual-source scanner (<1.1 mm, <0.5%). With the validation phantom, the dual-spiral scanner yielded errors below 0.8 mm (0.9%), whereas SECT yielded errors up to 1.6 mm (2%). For the patient case, where the absolute truth was missing, proton range differences between DECT and SECT were on average in -1.2 ± 1.2 mm (-0.5% ± 0.5%). MC dose calculations were successfully performed on DECT images, where the dual-spiral scanner resulted in media segmentation and range accuracy as good as the dual-source CT. In the patient, the various methods showed relevant range differences.