Tissue decomposition from dual energy CT data for MC based dose calculation in particle therapy.

PURPOSE The authors describe a novel method of predicting mass density and elemental mass fractions of tissues from dual energy CT (DECT) data for Monte Carlo (MC) based dose planning. METHODS The relative electron density ϱ(e) and effective atomic number Z(eff) are calculated for 71 tabulated tissue compositions. For MC simulations, the mass density is derived via one linear fit in the ϱ(e) that covers the entire range of tissue compositions (except lung tissue). Elemental mass fractions are predicted from the ϱ(e) and the Z(eff) in combination. Since particle therapy dose planning and verification is especially sensitive to accurate material assignment, differences to the ground truth are further analyzed for mass density, I-value predictions, and stopping power ratios (SPR) for ions. Dose studies with monoenergetic proton and carbon ions in 12 tissues which showed the largest differences of single energy CT (SECT) to DECT are presented with respect to range uncertainties. The standard approach (SECT) and the new DECT approach are compared to reference Bragg peak positions. RESULTS Mean deviations to ground truth in mass density predictions could be reduced for soft tissue from (0.5±0.6)% (SECT) to (0.2±0.2)% with the DECT method. Maximum SPR deviations could be reduced significantly for soft tissue from 3.1% (SECT) to 0.7% (DECT) and for bone tissue from 0.8% to 0.1%. Mean I-value deviations could be reduced for soft tissue from (1.1±1.4%, SECT) to (0.4±0.3%) with the presented method. Predictions of elemental composition were improved for every element. Mean and maximum deviations from ground truth of all elemental mass fractions could be reduced by at least a half with DECT compared to SECT (except soft tissue hydrogen and nitrogen where the reduction was slightly smaller). The carbon and oxygen mass fraction predictions profit especially from the DECT information. Dose studies showed that most of the 12 selected tissues would profit significantly (up to 2.2%) from DECT material decomposition with no noise present. The ϱ(e) associated with an absolute noise of ±0.01 and Z(eff) associated with an absolute noise of ±0.2 resulted in ±10% standard variation in the carbon and oxygen mass fraction prediction. CONCLUSIONS Accurate stopping power prediction is mainly determined by the correct mass density prediction. Theoretical improvements in range predictions with DECT data in the order of 0.1%-2.1% were observed. Further work is needed to quantify the potential improvements from DECT compared to SECT in measured image data associated with artifacts and noise.

[1]  H Paganetti,et al.  Systematic analysis of biological and physical limitations of proton beam range verification with offline PET/CT scans , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  O Jäkel,et al.  Relation between carbon ion ranges and x-ray CT numbers. , 2001, Medical physics.

[3]  Steffen Greilich,et al.  Ion range estimation by using dual energy computed tomography. , 2013, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

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

[5]  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.

[6]  Rainer Raupach,et al.  Erratum: First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system (European Radiology (2006) vol. 16 (2) (256-268) 10.1007/ s00330-005-2919-2) , 2006 .

[7]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Dose to water versus dose to medium in proton beam therapy , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Frank Verhaegen,et al.  Assigning nonelastic nuclear interaction cross sections to Hounsfield units for Monte Carlo treatment planning of proton beams , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Pedro Andreo,et al.  On the clinical spatial resolution achievable with protons and heavier charged particle radiotherapy beams , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  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.

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

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

[13]  W. Greiner,et al.  Comparative study of depth-dose distributions for beams of light and heavy nuclei in tissue-like media , 2007, 0704.2519.

[14]  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.

[15]  Frank Verhaegen,et al.  Sensitivity of low energy brachytherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations to uncertainties in human tissue composition. , 2010, Medical physics.

[16]  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.

[17]  J Weber,et al.  The effective atomic number and the calculation of the composition of phantom materials. , 1969, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  H Paganetti,et al.  TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. , 2012, Medical physics.

[19]  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.

[20]  Frank Verhaegen,et al.  Simulation study on potential accuracy gains from dual energy CT tissue segmentation for low-energy brachytherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

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

[23]  J. Williamson,et al.  Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: current status and recommendations for clinical implementation. , 2012, Medical physics.

[24]  K. Stierstorfer,et al.  First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system , 2006, European Radiology.

[25]  J F Ziegler,et al.  Comments on ICRU report no. 49: stopping powers and ranges for protons and alpha particles. , 1999, Radiation research.

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

[27]  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.

[28]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  The impact of uncertainties in the CT conversion algorithm when predicting proton beam ranges in patients from dose and PET-activity distributions , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  A Malusek,et al.  The potential of dual-energy computed tomography for quantitative decomposition of soft tissues to water, protein and lipid in brachytherapy , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[30]  H Paganetti,et al.  Adaptation of GEANT4 to Monte Carlo dose calculations based on CT data. , 2004, Medical physics.

[31]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

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