The potential of dual‐energy CT to reduce proton beam range uncertainties

Purpose Dual‐energy CT (DECT) promises improvements in estimating stopping power ratios (SPRs) for proton therapy treatment planning. Although several comparable mathematical formalisms have been proposed in literature, the optimal techniques to characterize human tissue SPRs with DECT in a clinical environment are not fully established. The aim of this work is to compare the most robust DECT methods against conventional single‐energy CT (SECT) in conditions reproducing a clinical environment, where CT artifacts and noise play a major role on the accuracy of these techniques. Methods Available DECT tissue characterization methods are investigated and their ability to predict SPRs is compared in three contexts: (a) a theoretical environment using the XCOM cross section database; (b) experimental data using a dual‐source CT scanner on a calibration phantom; (c) simulations of a virtual humanoid phantom with the ImaSim software. The latter comparison accounts for uncertainties caused by CT artifacts and noise, but leaves aside other sources of uncertainties such as CT grid size and the I‐values. To evaluate the clinical impact, a beam range calculation model is used to predict errors from the probability distribution functions determined with ImaSim simulations. Range errors caused by SPR errors in soft tissues and bones are investigated. Results Range error estimations demonstrate that DECT has the potential of reducing proton beam range uncertainties by 0.4% in soft tissues using low noise levels of 12 and 8 HU in DECT, corresponding to 7 HU in SECT. For range uncertainties caused by the transport of protons through bones, the reduction in range uncertainties for the same levels of noise is found to be up to 0.6 to 1.1 mm for bone thicknesses ranging from 1 to 5 cm, respectively. We also show that for double the amount noise, i.e., 14 HU in SECT and 24 and 16 HU for DECT, the advantages of DECT in soft tissues are lost over SECT. In bones however, the reduction in range uncertainties is found to be between 0.5 and 0.9 mm for bone thicknesses ranging from 1 to 5 cm, respectively. Conclusion DECT has a clear potential to improve proton beam range predictions over SECT in proton therapy. However, in the current state high levels of noise remain problematic for DECT characterization methods and do not allow getting the full benefits of this technology. Future work should focus on adapting DECT methods to noise and investigate methods based on raw‐data to reduce CT artifacts.

[1]  M. J. Berger.  ESTAR, PSTAR, and ASTAR: Computer programs for calculating stopping-power and range tables for electrons, protons, and helium ions , 1992 .

[2]  R. A. Rutherford,et al.  Measurement of effective atomic number and electron density using an EMI scanner , 2004, Neuroradiology.

[3]  Frank Verhaegen,et al.  MO‐D‐303A‐06: ImaSim, An Animated Tool for Teaching Imaging , 2009 .

[4]  J. H. Hubbell,et al.  XCOM: Photon Cross Section Database (version 1.2) , 1999 .

[5]  P. Riiegsegger.  Range precision of therapeutic proton beams , 2008 .

[6]  Joao Seco,et al.  Tissue decomposition from dual energy CT data for MC based dose calculation in particle therapy. , 2014, Medical physics.

[7]  A. Macovski,et al.  Energy-selective reconstructions in X-ray computerised tomography , 1976, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  E Pedroni,et al.  The precision of proton range calculations in proton radiotherapy treatment planning: experimental verification of the relation between CT-HU and proton stopping power. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[10]  Paolo Farace.  Experimental verification of ion stopping power prediction from dual energy CT data in tissue surrogates. , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[12]  David K. Brice,et al.  Stopping powers for electrons and positrons (ICRU report 37; International commission on radiation units and measurements, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 1984) , 1985 .

[13]  J. Wildberger,et al.  Extracting atomic numbers and electron densities from a dual source dual energy CT scanner: experiments and a simulation model. , 2011, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[14]  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.

[15]  W. Kalender,et al.  Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions , 2000 .

[16]  A. van der Schaaf,et al.  Relative electron density determination using a physics based parameterization of photon interactions in medical DECT , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  D. R. White,et al.  The composition of body tissues. , 1986, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  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.

[19]  D. R. White,et al.  Average soft-tissue and bone models for use in radiation dosimetry. , 1987, The British journal of radiology.

[20]  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.

[21]  H. Paganetti.  Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  M. Endo,et al.  Electron density measurement with dual-energy x-ray CT using synchrotron radiation. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[24]  Hugo Bouchard,et al.  A general method to derive tissue parameters for Monte Carlo dose calculation with multi-energy CT , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  K. Stierstorfer,et al.  Density and atomic number measurements with spectral x-ray attenuation method , 2003 .

[26]  J. Wildberger,et al.  Deriving concentrations of oxygen and carbon in human tissues using single- and dual-energy CT for ion therapy applications , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  Joshua D. Evans,et al.  Prospects for in vivo estimation of photon linear attenuation coefficients using postprocessing dual-energy CT imaging on a commercial scanner: comparison of analytic and polyenergetic statistical reconstruction algorithms. , 2013, Medical physics.

[28]  F. Verhaegen,et al.  Dual-energy CT-based material extraction for tissue segmentation in Monte Carlo dose calculations , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[30]  J. Seco,et al.  Deriving effective atomic numbers from DECT based on a parameterization of the ratio of high and low linear attenuation coefficients , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[31]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  X-ray attenuation coefficients of elements and mixtures , 1981 .

[32]  Stéphane Bedwani,et al.  A theoretical comparison of tissue parameter extraction methods for dual energy computed tomography. , 2014, Medical physics.

[33]  R. Cloutier.  Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. , 1989 .