Correction for ‘artificial’ electron disequilibrium due to cone-beam CT density errors: implications for on-line adaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy of lung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has rapidly become a clinically useful imaging modality for image-guided radiation therapy. Unfortunately, CBCT images of the thorax are susceptible to artefacts due to scattered photons, beam hardening, lag in data acquisition, and respiratory motion during a slow scan. These limitations cause dose errors when CBCT image data are used directly in dose computations for on-line, dose adaptive radiation therapy (DART). The purpose of this work is to assess the magnitude of errors in CBCT numbers (HU), and determine the resultant effects on derived tissue density and computed dose accuracy for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of lung cancer. Planning CT (PCT) images of three lung patients were acquired using a Philips multi-slice helical CT simulator, while CBCT images were obtained with a Varian On-Board Imaging system. To account for erroneous CBCT data, three practical correction techniques were tested: (1) conversion of CBCT numbers to electron density using phantoms, (2) replacement of individual CBCT pixel values with bulk CT numbers, averaged from PCT images for tissue regions, and (3) limited replacement of CBCT lung pixels values (LCT) likely to produce artificial lateral electron disequilibrium. For each corrected CBCT data set, lung SBRT dose distributions were computed for a 6 MV volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique within the Philips Pinnacle treatment planning system. The reference prescription dose was set such that 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received at least 54 Gy (i.e. D95). Further, we used the relative depth dose factor as an a priori index to predict the effects of incorrect low tissue density on computed lung dose in regions of severe electron disequilibrium. CT number profiles from co-registered CBCT and PCT patient lung images revealed many reduced lung pixel values in CBCT data, with some pixels corresponding to vacuum (-1000 HU). Similarly, CBCT data in a plastic lung phantom were reduced by 200 HU compared with known CT number values. For the three patients, dose results using the CBCT number data registered with PCT showed a prescription dose reduction ranging from 4 to 13% (D95 = 47 Gy). Therefore, accurate determination of lung density, especially for very low lung density (<0.2 g cm(-3)) is essential, but difficult to achieve using the CBCT data. Applying corrective techniques (1) and (2) to CBCT patient data produced unacceptable dose differences. For one typical VMAT SBRT patient, the D95 for the corrected CBCT and BCT image-based plans differed by -4% (D95 = 52 Gy) and 9% (D95 = 59 Gy) compared to the co-registered PCT image-based plan. However, corrective technique (3) produced negligible dose differences comparing LCT and PCT image-based plans. With regard to implementing on-line DART, dose errors must be minimized because they affect re-optimization decisions, and prevent accurate accumulation of the dose distribution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".