The ability of respiratory-correlated fan beam CT (4DCT) and respiratory-correlated cone beam CT (4DCBCT) to accurately estimate tumor volume is critical to accurate dosimetry and treatment verification for lung stere...The ability of respiratory-correlated fan beam CT (4DCT) and respiratory-correlated cone beam CT (4DCBCT) to accurately estimate tumor volume is critical to accurate dosimetry and treatment verification for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and other motion-managed therapies. However, it is known that 4DCT and 4DCBCT differ in aspects of image acquisition and reconstruction that may lead to discrepancies between the two modalities. To evaluate quantitative differences between 4DCT and 4DCBCT imaging under respiratory motion, we performed a phantom study in the ground truth setting. A programmable respiratory motion phantom was used to simulate the 1D S-I position of a known-size lesion. Ten sinusoidal and twenty patient-specific breathing waveforms were applied to drive lesion motion during the 4DCT and 4DCBCT acquisitions. The difference in lesion volume acquired between the two imaging modalities was as high as 34.4% and 18.4% for sinusoidal and patient-specific breathing motions, respectively. When compared to the true volume, 4DCT measurement often underestimated the lesion size whereas 4DCBCT overestimated the lesion volume in most of the cases. 4DCBCT gave more accurate recovery of the volume than 4DCT for most settings tested in this study. These findings may be helpful for improving the definition of internal target and planning target volume margins, and extracting quantitative information from on-board treatment verification imaging.展开更多
文摘The ability of respiratory-correlated fan beam CT (4DCT) and respiratory-correlated cone beam CT (4DCBCT) to accurately estimate tumor volume is critical to accurate dosimetry and treatment verification for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and other motion-managed therapies. However, it is known that 4DCT and 4DCBCT differ in aspects of image acquisition and reconstruction that may lead to discrepancies between the two modalities. To evaluate quantitative differences between 4DCT and 4DCBCT imaging under respiratory motion, we performed a phantom study in the ground truth setting. A programmable respiratory motion phantom was used to simulate the 1D S-I position of a known-size lesion. Ten sinusoidal and twenty patient-specific breathing waveforms were applied to drive lesion motion during the 4DCT and 4DCBCT acquisitions. The difference in lesion volume acquired between the two imaging modalities was as high as 34.4% and 18.4% for sinusoidal and patient-specific breathing motions, respectively. When compared to the true volume, 4DCT measurement often underestimated the lesion size whereas 4DCBCT overestimated the lesion volume in most of the cases. 4DCBCT gave more accurate recovery of the volume than 4DCT for most settings tested in this study. These findings may be helpful for improving the definition of internal target and planning target volume margins, and extracting quantitative information from on-board treatment verification imaging.
