Pixel value to electron density conversion for a Megavoltage Cone Beam CT System

Introduction: The motivation for developing megavoltage (and kilovoltage) cone beam CT (MV CBCT) capabilities in the radiotherapy treatment room was primarily based on the need to improve patient set-up accuracy. There has recently been an interest in using the cone beam CT data for treatment planning. Accurate treatment planning, however, requires knowledge of the electron density of the tissues receiving radiation in order to calculate dose distributions. This is obtained from CT, utilising a conversion between CT number and electron density of various tissues. The use of MV CBCT has particular advantages compared to treatment planning with kilovoltage CT in the presence of high atomic number materials and requires the conversion of pixel values from the image sets to electron density. Therefore, a study was undertaken to characterise the pixel value to electron density relationship for the Siemens MV CBCT system, MVision, and determine the effect, if any, of differing the number of monitor units used for acquisition. If a significant difference with number of monitor units was seen then pixel value to ED conversions may be required for each of the clinical settings. The calibration of the MV CT images for electron density offers the possibility for a daily recalculation of the dose distribution and the introduction of new adaptive radiotherapy treatment strategies. Methods: A Gammex Electron Density CT Phantom was imaged with the MVCB CT system. The pixel value for each of the sixteen inserts, which ranged from 0.292 to 1.707 relative electron density to the background solid water, was determined by taking the mean value from within a region of interest centred on the insert, over 5 slices within the centre of the phantom. These results were averaged and plotted against the relative electron densities of each insert with a linear least squares fit was preformed. This procedure was performed for images acquired with 5, 8, 15 and 60 monitor units. Results: The linear relationship between MVCT pixel value and ED was demonstrated for all monitor unit settings and over a range of electron densities. The number of monitor units utilised was found to have no significant impact on this relationship. Discussion: It was found that the number of MU utilised does not significantly alter the pixel value obtained for different ED materials. However, to ensure the most accurate and reproducible MV to ED calibration, one MU setting should be chosen and used routinely. To ensure accuracy for the clinical situation this MU setting should correspond to that which is used clinically. If more than one MU setting is used clinically then an average of the CT values acquired with different numbers of MU could be utilized without loss in accuracy. Conclusions: No significant differences have been shown between the pixel value to ED conversion for the Siemens MV CT cone beam unit with change in monitor units. Thus as single conversion curve could be utilised for MV CT treatment planning. To fully utilise MV CT imaging for radiotherapy treatment planning further work will be undertaken to ensure all corrections have been made and dose calculations verified. These dose calculations may be either for treatment planning purposes or for reconstructing the delivered dose distribution from transit dosimetry measurements made using electronic portal imaging devices. This will potentially allow the cumulative dose distribution to be determined through the patient’s multi-fraction treatment and adaptive treatment strategies developed to optimize the tumour response.

Image acquisition and manipulation protocols for CT-PET fusion to improve the accuracy of gross tumour volume localisation for 3D conformal radiotherapy for lung cancer

Aims: To develop clinical protocols for acquiring PET images, performing CT-PET registration and tumour volume definition based on the PET image data, for radiotherapy for lung cancer patients and then to test these protocols with respect to levels of accuracy and reproducibility. Method: A phantom-based quality assurance study of the processes associated with using registered CT and PET scans for tumour volume definition was conducted to: (1) investigate image acquisition and manipulation techniques for registering and contouring CT and PET images in a radiotherapy treatment planning system, and (2) determine technology-based errors in the registration and contouring processes. The outcomes of the phantom image based quality assurance study were used to determine clinical protocols. Protocols were developed for (1) acquiring patient PET image data for incorporation into the 3DCRT process, particularly for ensuring that the patient is positioned in their treatment position; (2) CT-PET image registration techniques and (3) GTV definition using the PET image data. The developed clinical protocols were tested using retrospective clinical trials to assess levels of inter-user variability which may be attributed to the use of these protocols. A Siemens Somatom Open Sensation 20 slice CT scanner and a Philips Allegro stand-alone PET scanner were used to acquire the images for this research. The Philips Pinnacle3 treatment planning system was used to perform the image registration and contouring of the CT and PET images. Results: Both the attenuation-corrected and transmission images obtained from standard whole-body PET staging clinical scanning protocols were acquired and imported into the treatment planning system for the phantom-based quality assurance study. Protocols for manipulating the PET images in the treatment planning system, particularly for quantifying uptake in volumes of interest and window levels for accurate geometric visualisation were determined. The automatic registration algorithms were found to have sub-voxel levels of accuracy, with transmission scan-based CT-PET registration more accurate than emission scan-based registration of the phantom images. Respiration induced image artifacts were not found to influence registration accuracy while inadequate pre-registration over-lap of the CT and PET images was found to result in large registration errors. A threshold value based on a percentage of the maximum uptake within a volume of interest was found to accurately contour the different features of the phantom despite the lower spatial resolution of the PET images. Appropriate selection of the threshold value is dependant on target-to-background ratios and the presence of respiratory motion. The results from the phantom-based study were used to design, implement and test clinical CT-PET fusion protocols. The patient PET image acquisition protocols enabled patients to be successfully identified and positioned in their radiotherapy treatment position during the acquisition of their whole-body PET staging scan. While automatic registration techniques were found to reduce inter-user variation compared to manual techniques, there was no significant difference in the registration outcomes for transmission or emission scan-based registration of the patient images, using the protocol. Tumour volumes contoured on registered patient CT-PET images using the tested threshold values and viewing windows determined from the phantom study, demonstrated less inter-user variation for the primary tumour volume contours than those contoured using only the patient’s planning CT scans. Conclusions: The developed clinical protocols allow a patient’s whole-body PET staging scan to be incorporated, manipulated and quantified in the treatment planning process to improve the accuracy of gross tumour volume localisation in 3D conformal radiotherapy for lung cancer. Image registration protocols which factor in potential software-based errors combined with adequate user training are recommended to increase the accuracy and reproducibility of registration outcomes. A semi-automated adaptive threshold contouring technique incorporating a PET windowing protocol, accurately defines the geometric edge of a tumour volume using PET image data from a stand alone PET scanner, including 4D target volumes.

An investigation into factors affecting electron density calibration for a megavoltage cone-beam CT system

There is a growing interest in the use of megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV CBCT) data for radiotherapy treatment planning. To calculate accurate dose distributions, knowledge of the electron density (ED) of the tissues being irradiated is required. In the case of MV CBCT, it is necessary to determine a calibration-relating CT number to ED, utilizing the photon beam produced for MV CBCT. A number of different parameters can affect this calibration. This study was undertaken on the Siemens MV CBCT system, MVision, to evaluate the effect of the following parameters on the reconstructed CT pixel value to ED calibration: the number of monitor units (MUs) used (5, 8, 15 and 60 MUs), the image reconstruction filter (head and neck, and pelvis), reconstruction matrix size (256 by 256 and 512 by 512), and the addition of extra solid water surrounding the ED phantom. A Gammex electron density CT phantom containing EDs from 0.292 to 1.707 was imaged under each of these conditions. The linear relationship between MV CBCT pixel value and ED was demonstrated for all MU settings and over the range of EDs. Changes in MU number did not dramatically alter the MV CBCT ED calibration. The use of different reconstruction filters was found to affect the MV CBCT ED calibration, as was the addition of solid water surrounding the phantom. Dose distributions from treatment plans calculated with simulated image data from a 15 MU head and neck reconstruction filter MV CBCT image and a MV CBCT ED calibration curve from the image data parameters and a 15 MU pelvis reconstruction filter showed small and clinically insignificant differences. Thus, the use of a single MV CBCT ED calibration curve is unlikely to result in any clinical differences. However, to ensure minimal uncertainties in dose reporting, MV CBCT ED calibration measurements could be carried out using parameter-specific calibration measurements.