Systematic analysis of the impact of imaging noise on dual-energy CT-based proton stopping power ratio estimation.

PURPOSE Dual-energy CT (DECT) has been shown to have a great potential in reducing the uncertainty in proton stopping power ratio (SPR) estimation, when compared to current standard method - the stoichiometric method based on single-energy CT (SECT). However, a few recent studies indicated that imaging noise may have a substantial impact on the performance of the DECT-based approach, especially at a high noise level. The goal of this study is to quantify the uncertainty in SPR and range estimation caused by noise in the DECT-based approach under various conditions. METHODS Two widely referred parametric DECT methods were studied: the Hünemohr-Saito (HS) method and the Bourque method. Both methods were calibrated using Gammex tissue substitute inserts scanned on the Siemens Force DECT scanner. An energy pair of 80 and 150 kVp with a tin filter was chosen to maximize the spectral separation. After calibrating the model with the Gammex phantom, CT numbers were synthesized using the density and elemental composition from ICRU 44 human tissues to be used as a reference, in order to evaluate the impact of noise alone while putting aside other sources of uncertainty. Gaussian noise was introduced to the reference CT numbers and its impact was measured with the difference between estimated SPR and its noiseless reference SPR. The uncertainty caused by noise was divided into two independent categories: shift of the mean SPR and variation of SPR. Their overall impact on range uncertainty was evaluated on homogeneous and heterogeneous tissue samples of various water equivalent path lengths (WEPL). RESULTS Due to the algorithms being nonlinear and/or having hard thresholds in the CT number to SPR mapping, noise in the CT numbers induced a shift in the mean SPR from its noiseless reference SPR. The degree of the mean shift was dependent on the algorithm and tissue type, but its impact on the SPR uncertainty was mostly small compared to the variation. All mean shifts observed in this study were within 0.5% at a noise level of 2%. The ratio of the influence of variation to mean shift was mostly greater than 1, indicating that variation more likely determined the uncertainty caused by noise. Overall, the range uncertainty (95th percentile) caused by noise was within 1.2% and 1.0% for soft and bone tissues, respectively, at 2% noise with 50 voxels. This value can be considered an upper limit as more voxels and lower noise level rapidly decreased the uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS We have systematically evaluated the impact of noise to the DECT-based SPR estimation and identified under various conditions that the variation caused by noise is the dominant uncertainty-contributing component. We conclude that, based on the noise level and tumor depth, it is important to estimate and include the uncertainty due to noise in estimating the overall range uncertainty before implementing a small margin in the range of 1%.

[1]  E. Pedroni,et al.  The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Shota Sagara,et al.  Simplified derivation of stopping power ratio in the human body from dual‐energy CT data , 2017, Medical physics.

[3]  Frank Verhaegen,et al.  Dual energy CT in radiotherapy: Current applications and future outlook. , 2016, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[4]  Mechthild Krause,et al.  Radiation oncology in the era of precision medicine , 2016, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[5]  A. Chvetsov,et al.  The influence of CT image noise on proton range calculation in radiotherapy planning , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  R Mohan,et al.  Does kV–MV dual-energy computed tomography have an advantage in determining proton stopping power ratios in patients? , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Rongxiao Zhang,et al.  Experimental validation of two dual‐energy CT methods for proton therapy using heterogeneous tissue samples , 2018, Medical physics.

[8]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to patient stopping-power-ratio estimation using the stoichiometric calibration , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Hugo Bouchard,et al.  The potential of dual‐energy CT to reduce proton beam range uncertainties , 2017, Medical physics.

[10]  Vicki T Taasti,et al.  A robust empirical parametrization of proton stopping power using dual energy CT. , 2016, Medical physics.

[11]  M. F. Reiser,et al.  Dual energy CT in clinical practice , 2011 .

[12]  Steffen Greilich,et al.  On the equivalence of image-based dual-energy CT methods for the determination of electron density and effective atomic number in radiotherapy , 2018, Physics and imaging in radiation oncology.

[13]  Wolfgang Enghardt,et al.  Clinical Implementation of Dual-energy CT for Proton Treatment Planning on Pseudo-monoenergetic CT scans. , 2017, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  A. Deisher,et al.  Validation of proton stopping power ratio estimation based on dual energy CT using fresh tissue samples , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Steffen Greilich,et al.  Dual-energy CT based proton range prediction in head and pelvic tumor patients. , 2017, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[16]  Thomas Bortfeld,et al.  Three ways to make proton therapy affordable , 2017, Nature.

[17]  Steffen Greilich,et al.  Experimental verification of stopping-power prediction from single- and dual-energy computed tomography in biological tissues , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Comparison of proton therapy treatment planning for head tumors with a pencil beam algorithm on dual and single energy CT images. , 2016, Medical physics.

[19]  Cai Grau,et al.  Comparison of single and dual energy CT for stopping power determination in proton therapy of head and neck cancer , 2018, Physics and imaging in radiation oncology.

[20]  Combined influence of CT random noise and HU-RSP calibration curve nonlinearities on proton range systematic errors. , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Steffen Greilich,et al.  Evaluation of Stopping-Power Prediction by Dual- and Single-Energy Computed Tomography in an Anthropomorphic Ground-Truth Phantom. , 2018, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  R. Mohan,et al.  Theoretical variance analysis of single- and dual-energy computed tomography methods for calculating proton stopping power ratios of biological tissues , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  Annika Jakobi,et al.  Clinical Feasibility of Single-Source Dual-spiral 4D Dual-Energy CT for Proton Treatment Planning Within the Thoracic Region. , 2018, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[24]  T. Solberg,et al.  Ex vivo validation of a stoichiometric dual energy CT proton stopping power ratio calibration , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  X Jia,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to stopping-power-ratio estimation using dual-energy CT imaging , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  M. Saito.  Potential of dual-energy subtraction for converting CT numbers to electron density based on a single linear relationship. , 2012, Medical physics.

[27]  Range prediction for tissue mixtures based on dual-energy CT. , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  Alexandra E Bourque,et al.  A stoichiometric calibration method for dual energy computed tomography , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  Jeffrey V Siebers,et al.  A linear, separable two-parameter model for dual energy CT imaging of proton stopping power computation. , 2016, Medical physics.

[30]  Steffen Greilich,et al.  Experimental verification of ion stopping power prediction from dual energy CT data in tissue surrogates , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.