DUAL ENERGY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FOR PROTON THERAPY TREATMENT PLANNING

Proton radiation therapy is gaining popularity because of the unique characteristics of its dose distribution, e.g., high dose-gradient at the distal end of the percentage-depth-dose curve (known as the Bragg peak). The high dose-gradient offers the possibility of delivering high dose to the target while still sparing critical organs distal to the target. However, the high dose-gradient is a double-edged sword: a small shift of the highly conformal high-dose area can cause the target to be substantially under-dosed or the critical organs to be substantially over-dosed. Because of that, large margins are required in treatment planning to ensure adequate dose coverage of the target, which prevents us from realizing the full potential of proton beams. Therefore, it is critical to reduce uncertainties in the proton radiation therapy. One major uncertainty in a proton treatment is the range uncertainty related to the estimation of proton stopping power ratio (SPR) distribution inside a patient. The SPR distribution inside a patient is required to account for tissue heterogeneities when calculating dose distribution inside the patient. In current clinical practice, the SPR distribution inside a patient is estimated from the patient’s treatment planning computed tomography (CT) images based on the CT number-to-SPR calibration curve. The SPR derived from a single CT number carries large uncertainties in the presence of human tissue composition variations, which is the major drawback of the current SPR estimation method. We propose to solve this problem by using dual energy CT (DECT) and hypothesize that the range uncertainty can be reduced by a factor of two from currently used value of 3.5%. A MATLAB program was developed to calculate the electron density ratio (EDR) and effective atomic number (EAN) from two CT measurements of the same object. An empirical relationship was discovered between mean excitation energies and EANs existing in human body tissues. With the MATLAB program and the empirical relationship, a DECT-based method was successfully developed to derive SPRs for human body tissues (the DECT method). The DECT method is more robust against the uncertainties in human tissues compositions than the current single-CT-based method, because the DECT method incorporated both density and elemental composition information in the SPR estimation. Furthermore, we studied practical limitations of the DECT method. We found that the accuracy of the DECT method using conventional kV-kV x-ray pair is susceptible to CT number variations, which compromises the theoretical advantage of the DECT method. Our solution to this problem is to use a different x-ray pair for the DECT. The accuracy of the DECT method using different combinations of x-ray energies, i.e., the kV-kV, kV-MV and MV-MV pair, was compared using the measured imaging uncertainties for each case. The kV-MV DECT was found to be the most robust against CT number variations. In addition, we studied how uncertainties propagate through the DECT calculation, and found general principles of selecting x-ray pairs for the DECT method to minimize its sensitivity to CT number variations. The uncertainties in SPRs estimated using the kV-MV DECT were analyzed further and compared to those using the stoichiometric method. The uncertainties in SPR estimation can be divided into five categories according to their origins: the inherent uncertainty, the DECT modeling uncertainty, the CT imaging uncertainty, the uncertainty in the mean excitation energy, and SPR variation with proton energy. Additionally, human body tissues were divided into three tissue groups – low density (lung) tissues, soft tissues and bone tissues. The uncertainties were estimated separately because their uncertainties were different under each condition. An estimate of the composite range uncertainty (2s) was determined for three tumor sites – prostate, lung, and head-and-neck, by combining the uncertainty estimates of all three tissue groups, weighted by their proportions along typical beam path for each treatment site. In conclusion, the DECT method holds theoretical advantages in estimating SPRs for human tissues over the current single-CT-based method. Using existing imaging techniques, the kV-MV DECT approach was capable of reducing the range uncertainty from the currently used value of 3.5% to 1.9%-2.3%, but it is short to reach our original goal of reducing the range uncertainty by a factor of two. The dominant source of uncertainties in the kV-MV DECT was the uncertainties in CT imaging, especially in MV CT imaging. Further reduction in beam hardening effect, the impact of scatter, out-of-field object etc. would reduce the Hounsfeld Unit variations in CT imaging. The kV-MV DECT still has the potential to reduce the range uncertainty further.

A SIMULATION STUDY OF THE SIZE AND POWER OF SOME TWO-SAMPLE TESTS FOR UNEQUALLY CENSORED SURVIVAL DATA (RANK TESTS, LOGRANK, PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS, WILCOXON TESTS, EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION)

Sizes and power of selected two-sample tests of the equality of survival distributions are compared by simulation for small samples from unequally, randomly-censored exponential distributions. The tests investigated include parametric tests (F, Score, Likelihood, Asymptotic), logrank tests (Mantel, Peto-Peto), and Wilcoxon-Type tests (Gehan, Prentice). Equal sized samples, n = 18, 16, 32 with 1000 (size) and 500 (power) simulation trials, are compared for 16 combinations of the censoring proportions 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60%. For n = 8 and 16, the Asymptotic, Peto-Peto, and Wilcoxon tests perform at nominal 5% size expectations, but the F, Score and Mantel tests exceeded 5% size confidence limits for 1/3 of the censoring combinations. For n = 32, all tests showed proper size, with the Peto-Peto test most conservative in the presence of unequal censoring. Powers of all tests are compared for exponential hazard ratios of 1.4 and 2.0. There is little difference in power characteristics of the tests within the classes of tests considered. The Mantel test showed 90% to 95% power efficiency relative to parametric tests. Wilcoxon-type tests have the lowest relative power but are robust to differential censoring patterns. A modified Peto-Peto test shows power comparable to the Mantel test. For n = 32, a specific Weibull-exponential comparison of crossing survival curves suggests that the relative powers of logrank and Wilcoxon-type tests are dependent on the scale parameter of the Weibull distribution. Wilcoxon-type tests appear more powerful than logrank tests in the case of late-crossing and less powerful for early-crossing survival curves. Guidelines for the appropriate selection of two-sample tests are given. ^

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REMOTE AUDIT TOOL FOR HIGH DOSE RATE (HDR) 192IR BRACHYTHERAPY USING OPTICALLY STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE DOSIMETRY

This work aimed to create a mailable and OSLD-based phantom with accuracy suitable for RPC audits of HDR brachytherapy sources at institutions participating in NCI-funded cooperative clinical trials. An 8 × 8 × 10 cm3 prototype with two slots capable of holding nanoDot Al2O3:C OSL dosimeters (Landauer, Glenwood, IL) was designed and built. The phantom has a single channel capable of accepting all 192Ir HDR brachytherapy sources in current clinical use in the United States. Irradiations were performed with an 192Ir HDR source to determine correction factors for linearity with dose, dose rate, and the combined effect of irradiation energy and phantom construction. The uncertainties introduced by source positioning in the phantom and timer resolution limitations were also investigated. It was found that the linearity correction factor was where dose is in cGy, which differed from that determined by the RPC for the same batch of dosimeters under 60Co irradiation. There was no significant dose rate effect. Separate energy+block correction factors were determined for both models of 192Ir sources currently in clinical use and these vendor-specific correction factors differed by almost 2.6%. For Nucletron sources, this correction factor was 1.026±0.004 (99% Confidence Interval) and for Varian sources it was 1.000±0.007 (99% CI). Reasonable deviations in source positioning within the phantom and the limited resolution of the source timer had insignificant effects on the ability to measure dose. Overall measurement uncertainty of the system was estimated to be ±2.5% for both Nucletron and Varian source audits (95% CI). This uncertainty was sufficient to establish a ±5% acceptance criterion for source strength audits under a formal RPC audit program. Trial audits of eight participating institutions resulted in an average RPC-to-institution dose ratio of 1.000 with a standard deviation of 0.011.