Comparison of single and dual energy CT for stopping power determination in proton therapy of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with head and neck (HN) cancer may benefit from proton therapy due to the potential for sparing of normal tissue. For planning of proton therapy, dual-energy CT (DECT) has been shown to provide superior stopping power ratio (SPR) determination in phantom materials and organic tissue samples, compared to single-energy CT (SECT). However, the benefit of DECT in HN cancer patients has not yet been investigated. This study therefore compared DECT- and SECT-based SPR estimation for HN cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen HN cancer patients were DECT scanned. Eight patients were scanned using a dual source DECT scanner and six were scanned with a conventional SECT scanner by acquiring two consecutive scans. SECT image sets were computed as a weighted summation of the low and high energy DECT image sets. DECT- and SECT-based SPR maps were derived. Water-equivalent path lengths (WEPLs) through the SPR maps were compared in the eight cases with dual source DECT scans. Mean SPR estimates over region-of-interests (ROIs) in the cranium, brain and eyes were analyzed for all patients. RESULTS: A median WEPL difference of 1.9 mm (1.5%) was found across the eight patients. Statistically significant SPR differences were seen for the ROIs in the brain and eyes, with the SPR estimates based on DECT overall lower than for SECT. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant WEPL and SPR differences were found between DECT and SECT, which could imply that the accuracy of treatment planning for proton therapy would benefit from DECT-based SPR estimation.

Technical Note: Improving proton stopping power ratio determination for a deformable silicone-based 3D dosimeter using dual energy CT.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the stopping power ratio (SPR) of a deformable, silicone-based 3D dosimeter could be determined more accurately using dual energy (DE) CT compared to using conventional methods based on single energy (SE) CT. The use of SECT combined with the stoichiometric calibration method was therefore compared to DECT-based determination. METHODS: The SPR of the dosimeter was estimated based on its Hounsfield units (HUs) in both a SECT image and a DECT image set. The stoichiometric calibration method was used for converting the HU in the SECT image to a SPR value for the dosimeter while two published SPR calibration methods for dual energy were applied on the DECT images. Finally, the SPR of the dosimeter was measured in a 60 MeV proton by quantifying the range difference with and without the dosimeter in the beam path. RESULTS: The SPR determined from SECT and the stoichiometric method was 1.10, compared to 1.01 with both DECT calibration methods. The measured SPR for the dosimeter material was 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: The SPR of the dosimeter was overestimated by 13% using the stoichiometric method and by 3% when using DECT. If the stoichiometric method should be applied for the dosimeter, the HU of the dosimeter must be manually changed in the treatment planning system in order to give a correct SPR estimate. Using a wrong SPR value will cause differences between the calculated and the delivered treatment plans.