Dataset Information

MR-based CT metal artifact reduction for head-and-neck photon, electron, and proton radiotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We investigated the impact on computed tomography (CT) image quality and photon, electron, and proton head-and-neck (H&N) radiotherapy (RT) dose calculations of three CT metal artifact reduction (MAR) approaches: A CT-based algorithm (oMAR Philips Healthcare), manual water override, and our recently presented, Magnetic Resonance (MR)-based kerMAR algorithm. We considered the following three hypotheses: I: Manual water override improves MAR over the CT- and MR-based alternatives; II: The automatic algorithms (oMAR and kerMAR) improve MAR over the uncorrected CT; III: kerMAR improves MAR over oMAR.

Methods

We included a veal shank phantom with/without six metal inserts and nine H&N RT patients with dental implants. We quantified the MAR capabilities by the reduction of outliers in the CT value distribution in regions of interest, and the change in particle range and photon depth at maximum dose.

Results

Water override provided apparent image improvements in the soft tissue region but insignificantly or negatively influenced the dose calculations. We however found significant improvements in image quality and particle range impact, compared to the uncorrected CT, when using oMAR and kerMAR. kerMAR in turn provided superior improvements in terms of high intensity streak suppression compared to oMAR, again with associated impacts on the particle range estimates.

Conclusion

We found no benefits of the water override compared to the rest, and tentatively reject hypothesis I. We however found improvements in the automatic algorithms, and thus support for hypothesis II, and found the MR-based kerMAR to improve upon oMAR, supporting hypothesis III.

SUBMITTER: Nielsen JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6802740 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMetal artifacts due to spinal implants may affect the accuracy of dose calculation for radiotherapy. However, the dosimetric impact of metal artifact reduction (MAR) for spinal implants in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric impact of MAR in spinal SBRT planning with three clinically common dose calculation algorithms.MethodsGammex phantom and 10 patients' computed tomography (CT) images were studied to investigate the effects of titanium implants. A commercial orthopedic MAR algorithm was employed to reduce artifacts. Dose calculations for SBRT were conducted on both artifact-corrected and uncorrected images using three commercial algorithms [analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB (AXB), and Monte Carlo (MC)]. Dose discrepancies between artifact-corrected and uncorrected cases were appraised using a dose-volume histogram (DVH) and 3-dimensional (3D) gamma analysis with different distance to agreement (DTA) and dose difference criteria. The gamma agreement index (GAI) was denoted as G(∆D, DTA). Statistical analysis of t-test was utilized to evaluate the dose differences of different algorithms.ResultsThe phantom study demonstrated that titanium metal artifacts can be effectively reduced. The patient cases study showed that dose differences between the artifact-corrected and uncorrected datasets were small evaluated by gamma index and DVH. Gamma analysis found that even the strict criterion local G(1,1) had average values ≥93.9% for the three algorithms. For all DVH metrics, average differences did not exceed 0.7% in planning target volume (PTV) and 2.1% in planning risk volume of spinal cord (PRV-SC). Statistical analysis showed that the observed dose differences of MC method were significantly larger than those of AAA (P<0.01 for D98% of PTV and P<0.001 for D0.1cc of spinal cord) and AXB methods (P<0.001 for D98% and P<0.0001 for D0.1cc).ConclusionsDosimetric impact of artifacts caused by titanium implants is not significant in spinal SBRT planning, which indicates that dose calculation algorithms might not be very sensitive to CT number variation caused by titanium inserts.