Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:46:21.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimisation of Varian TrueBeam head, thorax and pelvis CBCT based on patient size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2021

Christina E. Agnew Open the ORCID record for Christina E. Agnew [Opens in a new window] ,
Candice McCallum ,
Gail Johnston ,
Adam Workman  and
Denise M. Irvine
Christina E. Agnew*
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy Physics, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, BelfastBT9 7AB, Northern Ireland
Candice McCallum
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy Physics, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, BelfastBT9 7AB, Northern Ireland
Gail Johnston
Affiliation:
Radiation Protection and Radiological Sciences and Imaging, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Forster Green Hospital, BelfastBT8 6GR, Northern Ireland
Adam Workman
Affiliation:
Radiation Protection and Radiological Sciences and Imaging, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Forster Green Hospital, BelfastBT8 6GR, Northern Ireland
Denise M. Irvine
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy Physics, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, BelfastBT9 7AB, Northern Ireland
*
Author for correspondence: Christina E. Agnew, Radiotherapy Physics, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, BelfastBT9 7AB, Northern Ireland. Tel: +44 28 95048352. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to optimise patient dose and image quality of Varian TrueBeam cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) pelvis, thorax and head and neck (H&N) images based on patient size.

Methods:

An elliptical phantom of small, medium and large size was designed representative of a local population of pelvis, thorax and H&N patients. The phantom was used to establish the relationship between image noise, CT and CBCT exposure settings. Using this insight, clinical images were optimised in phases and the image quality graded qualitatively by radiographers. At each phase, the time required to match the images was recorded from the record and verify system.

Results:

Average patient diameter was a suitable metric to categorise patient size. Phantom measurements showed the power relationship between noise and CBCT exposure settings of value −0·15, −0·35 and −0·43 for thorax, pelvis and H&N, respectively. These quantitative phantom measurements provided confidence that phased variation of ~±20% in mAs should result in clinically usable images. Qualitative assessment of almost 2000 images reduced the exposure settings in H&N images by −50%, thorax images by up to −66% and pelvis images by up to −80%. These optimised CBCT settings did not affect the time required to match images.

Findings:

Varian TrueBeam CBCT mAs settings have been optimised for dose and image quality based on patient size for three treatment sites: pelvis, thorax and H&N. Quantitative phantom measurements provided insight into the magnitude of change to implement clinically. The final optimised exposure settings were determined from radiographer qualitative image assessment.

Keywords

CBCTdose optimisationradiotherapy imaging
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 248 - 256
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ariyaratne, H, Chesham, H, Pettingell, J, Alonzi, R. Image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer with cone beam CT: dosimetric effects of imaging frequency and PTV margin. Radiat Oncol 2016; 121:103–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilburn, J, Soike, M, Lucas, J et al. Image guided radiation therapy may result in improved local control in locally advanced lung cancer patients. Pract Radiat Oncol 2016; 6: e73–e80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelefsky, M, Kollmeier, M, Cox, B et al. Improved clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84:125–129.Google ScholarPubMed
Dawson, L, Sharpe, M. Image guided radiotherapy; rationale, benefits and limitations. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7:848–858.Google ScholarPubMed
National Cancer Action Team. National Radiotherapy Implementation Group Report. Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) Guidance for implementation and use.London, England: NHS, 2012.Google Scholar
Ding, G, Munro, P. Radiation exposure to patients from image guidance procedures and techniques to reduce the imaging dose. Radiat Oncol 2013; 108: 91–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stock, M, Palm, A, Altendorfer, A, Steiner, E, Georg, D. IGRT induced dose burden for a variety of imaging protocols at two different anatomical sites. Radiat Oncol 2012; 102:355–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, T, Moore, C, Saunderson, J, Beavis, A. Validation of a technique for estimating organ doses for kilovoltage con-beam CT of the prostate using the PCXMC 2.0 patient dose calculator. J Radiol Prot 2015; 35:153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyer, DE, Serago, CF, Li, G, Hintenlang, DE. An organ and effective dose study of XVI and OBI cone-beam CT systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11:181–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawahara, D, Ozawa, S, Nakashima, T et al. Absorbed dose and imaging quality of Varian TrueBeam CBCT compared with OBI CBCT. Phys Med 2016; 32:1628–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawyer, LJ, Whittle, ES, Matthews, ES, Starritt, HC, Jupp, TP. Estimation of organ and effective doses resulting from cone beam CT imaging for radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol 2009; 82:577–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ding, G, Munro, P, Pawlowski, J, Malcom, A, Coffey, C. Reducing radiation exposure to patients from kV-CBCT imaging. Radiother Oncol 2010; 97:585–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, M, Balter, J, Balter, S, Bencomo, J, Das, I, Jiang, S. The management of imaging dose during image guided radiotherapy: report of AAPM Task Group 75. Med Phys 2007; 34:4041–4063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.Oxford, UK: ICRP Publication 103, 2007.Google Scholar
The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R). London, UK, 2018.Google Scholar
Sookpeng, S, Martin, CGD, Lopez-Gonzalez, M. Relationship between patient size, dose and image noise under automatic tube current modulation systems. J Radiol Prot 2014; 34:102–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AT, Palmer, AL, Nisbet, A. Can CT scan protocols used for radiotherapy treatment planning be adjusted to optimize image quality and patient dose? A systematic review. Br J Radiol 2017; 90:20160406 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huda, W, Bushong, S. In X-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. Med Phys 2001; 28:1543–1545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotre, C, Willis, S. A method for the systematic selection of technique factors in paediatric CT. Br J Radiol 2003; 76:51–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, L, Li, H, Fletcher, J, McCollough, C. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys 2010; 37:234–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huda, W, Scalzetti, E, Levin, G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Med Phys 2000; 217:430–435.Google ScholarPubMed
Wood, T, Moore, C, Horsfield, C, Saunderson, J, Beavis, A. Accounting for patient size in the optimisation of dose and image quality of pelvis cone beam CT protocols on the Varian OBI system. Br J Radiol 2015; 88:20150364.Google Scholar
Yang, C, Yu, P, Ruan, J, Chen, Y. Optimizing the target detectability of cone beam CT performed in image-guided radiation therapy for patients of different body sizes. Med Imag 2017; 19:310–317.Google Scholar
Marchant, T. CBCT image quality variation with patient size and imaging dose. IPEM Conference: X-Ray Imaging in Radiotherapy. Birmingham, 2015. Abstract pg95. https://www.ipem.ac.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Conferences/2015/2015%20CONFERENCE%20ABSTRACTS.pdf.Google Scholar
Bernstein, D, Alexander, S, Castellano, E, King, L, Humpherys, M, Bhuva, N. A journey in CBCT optimisation. IPEM Conference: X-Ray Imaging in Radiotherapy. Birmingham, 2015. Abstract pg98. https://www.ipem.ac.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Conferences/2015/2015%20CONFERENCE%20ABSTRACTS.pdf.Google Scholar
Yan, H, Cervino, L, Jia, X, Jiang, S. A comprehensive study on the relationship between the image quality and imaging dose in low-dose cone beam CT. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57:2063–2080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langmack, K, Newton, LA, Jordan, S, Smith, R. Cone Beam CT dose reduction in prostate radiotherapy using Likert scale methods. Br J Radiol 2016; 89:20150460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
British Institute of Radiology. Conference Proceedings: The Technology and Uses of On-Treatment Imaging in Radiotherapy, London, 2015.Google Scholar
Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). Conference Proceedings: X-Ray Imaging in Radiotherapy, Birmingham, 2015.Google Scholar
Pauwels, R, Silkosessak, O, Jacobs, R, Bogaerts, R, Bosmans, H, Panmekiate, S. A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone beam CT: balancing contrast to noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomax Rad 2014; 43:20140059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rong, Y, Smilowitz, J, Tewatia, D, Tomé, WA, Paliwal, B. Dose calculation on kV cone beam CT images: an investigation of the HU-density conversion stability and dose accuracy using the site-specific calibration. Med Dos 2010; 35:195–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeble, C, Baxter, PD, Gislason-lee, AJ, Treadgold, LA, Davies, A. Methods for the analysis of ordinal response data in medical image assessment. Br J Radiol 2016; 89:20160094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pang, E, Knight, K, Fan, Q et al. Analysis of intra-fraction prostate motion and derivation of duration-dependent margins for radiotherapy using real-time 4D ultrasound. Phys Imag Radiat Oncol 2018; 5:102–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ordonez-Sanz C. St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London. Communication on Medical Physics and Engineering Mailbase JISCMail. https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/ 12 Jul 2016 [accessed 30 Mar 2020].Google Scholar