CT number calibration audit in photon radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate computed tomography (CT) number calibration curves affect dose calculation accuracy. Although CT number calibration curves registered in treatment planning systems (TPSs) should be consistent with human tissues, it is unclear whether adequate CT number calibration is performed because CT number calibration curves have not been assessed for various types of CT number calibration phantoms and TPSs. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate CT number calibration curves for mass density (ρ) and relative electron density (ρe ). METHODS: A CT number calibration audit phantom was sent to 24 Japanese photon therapy institutes from the evaluating institute and scanned using their individual clinical CT scan protocols. The CT images of the audit phantom and institute-specific CT number calibration curves were submitted to the evaluating institute for analyzing the calibration curves registered in the TPSs at the participating institutes. The institute-specific CT number calibration curves were created using commercial phantom (Gammex, Gammex Inc., Middleton, WI, USA) or CIRS phantom (Computerized Imaging Reference Systems, Inc., Norfolk, VA, USA)). At the evaluating institute, theoretical CT number calibration curves were created using a stoichiometric CT number calibration method based on the CT image, and the institute-specific CT number calibration curves were compared with the theoretical calibration curve. Differences in ρ and ρe over the multiple points on the curve (Δρm and Δρe,m , respectively) were calculated for each CT number, categorized for each phantom vendor and TPS, and evaluated for three tissue types: lung, soft tissues, and bones. In particular, the CT-ρ calibration curves for Tomotherapy TPSs (ACCURAY, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) were categorized separately from the Gammex CT-ρ calibration curves because the available tissue-equivalent materials (TEMs) were limited by the manufacturer recommendations. In addition, the differences in ρ and ρe for the specific TEMs (ΔρTEM and Δρe,TEM , respectively) were calculated by subtracting the ρ or ρe of the TEMs from the theoretical CT-ρ or CT-ρe calibration curve. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of Δρm and Δρe,m for the Gammex phantom were -1.1 ± 1.2 g/cm3 and -0.2 ± 1.1, -0.3 ± 0.9 g/cm3 and 0.8 ± 1.3, and -0.9 ± 1.3 g/cm3 and 1.0 ± 1.5 for lung, soft tissues, and bones, respectively. The mean ± SD of Δρm and Δρe,m for the CIRS phantom were 0.3 ± 0.8 g/cm3 and 0.9 ± 0.9, 0.6 ± 0.6 g/cm3 and 1.4 ± 0.8, and 0.2 ± 0.5 g/cm3 and 1.6 ± 0.5 for lung, soft tissues, and bones, respectively. The mean ± SD of Δρm for Tomotherapy TPSs was 2.1 ± 1.4 g/cm3 for soft tissues, which is larger than those for other TPSs. The mean ± SD of Δρe,TEM for the Gammex brain phantom (BRN-SR2) was -1.8 ± 0.4, implying that the tissue equivalency of the BRN-SR2 plug was slightly inferior to that of other plugs. CONCLUSIONS: Latent deviations between human tissues and TEMs were found by comparing the CT number calibration curves of the various institutes.

[Development of a Phantom and Analysis Program for Assessment of Positional Accuracy of Image-guided Radiation Therapy].

PURPOSE: We created a phantom and analysis program for the assessment of IGRT positional accuracy. We verified the accuracy of analysis and the practicality of this evaluation method at several facilities. METHOD: End-to-end test was performed using an in-house phantom, and EPID images were acquired after displacement by an arbitrary amount using a micrometer, with after image registration as the reference. The difference between the center of the target and the irradiated field was calculated using our in-house analysis program and commercial software. The end-to-end test was conducted at three facilities, and the IGRT positional accuracy evaluation was verified. RESULT: The maximum difference between the displacement of the target determined from the EPID image and the arbitrary amount of micrometer displacement was 0.24 mm for the in-house analysis program and 0.30 mm for the commercial software. The maximum difference between the center of the target and the irradiation field on EPID images acquired at the three facilities was 0.97 mm. CONCLUSION: The proposed evaluation method using our in-house phantom and analysis program can be used for the assessment of IGRT positional accuracy.

[Improvement of Nonuniformity on Flatbed Scanner for Radiochromic Film Dosimetry Using Average Correction Factor with Multi-direction Scan Data].

In order to correct the lateral effect caused by the light source of the flatbed scanner in the Gafchromic film EBT3, the usefulness of the correction method using the average value of the correction coefficient considering the scan directions were evaluated. EBT3 was scanned from four directions to measure the optical density (OD) of the red, blue, and, red/blue components and the correction coefficient were calculated. For the correction coefficients, average values were calculated for the purpose of use, when the scan directions could not be aligned (average lateral effect correction). Correction accuracy was verified with the pass rate of gamma analysis (3 mm/3%, threshold 30%) of the dose distribution using the EBT3 film irradiated with the step pattern. OD of the red, blue, and, red/blue components in the scanning vertical direction tended to be higher in the center than in the peripheral portion. The pass rate of the step pattern was the red component's before correction, from 26.9 to 45.1% (before correction), from 84.1 to 96.7% (after correction), the red/blue component, from 37.6 to 48.4% (before correction) and from 84.4 to 96.7% (after correction). When using the correction coefficient using the average value, the pass rate was 89.8% for the red component and 94.7% for the red/blue component. The lateral effect correction improves the accuracy of the dose distribution verification, and the correction coefficient using the average value is useful when the scanning direction is different from that at the time of obtaining the dose concentration curve.