ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022 | Volume
: 47 | Issue : 4 | Page : 344--351
Comparison of three commercial methods of cone-beam computed tomography-based dosimetric analysis of head-and-neck patients with weight loss
Satyapal Rathee, Benjamin Burke, Amr Heikal
Department of Oncology, University of Alberta; Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Satyapal Rathee
Department of Oncology, University of Alberta and Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1Z2
Canada
Purpose: This investigation compares three commercial methods of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based dosimetric analysis to a method based on repeat computed tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: Seventeen head-and-neck patients treated in 2020, and with a repeat CT, were included in the analyses. The planning CT was deformed to anatomy in repeat CT to generate a reference plan. Two of the CBCT-based methods generated test plans by deforming the planning CT to CBCT of fraction N using VelocityAI™ and SmartAdapt®. The third method compared directly calculated doses on the CBCT for fraction 1 and fraction N, using PerFraction™. Maximum dose to spinal cord (Cord_dmax) and dose to 95% volume (D95) of planning target volumes (PTVs) were used to assess “need to replan” criteria. Results: The VelocityAI™ method provided results that most accurately matched the reference plan in “need to replan” criteria using either Cord_dmax or PTV D95. SmartAdapt® method overestimated the change in Cord_dmax (6.77% vs. 3.85%, P < 0.01) and change in cord volume (9.56% vs. 0.67%, P < 0.01) resulting in increased false positives in “need to replan” criteria, and performed similarly to VelocityAI™ for D95, but yielded more false negatives. PerFraction™ method underestimated Cord_dmax, did not perform any volume deformation, and missed all “need to replan” cases based on cord dose. It also yielded high false negatives using the D95 PTV criteria. Conclusions: The VelocityAI™-based method using fraction N CBCT is most similar to the reference plan using repeat CT; the other two methods had significant differences.
How to cite this article:
Rathee S, Burke B, Heikal A. Comparison of three commercial methods of cone-beam computed tomography-based dosimetric analysis of head-and-neck patients with weight loss.J Med Phys 2022;47:344-351
|
How to cite this URL:
Rathee S, Burke B, Heikal A. Comparison of three commercial methods of cone-beam computed tomography-based dosimetric analysis of head-and-neck patients with weight loss. J Med Phys [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Mar 27 ];47:344-351
Available from: https://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2022;volume=47;issue=4;spage=344;epage=351;aulast=Rathee;type=0 |
|
|
|
