First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre
Background and Purpose: This work introduces the first assessment of CT calibration following the ESTRO's consensus guidelines and validating the HLUT through the irradiation of biological material. Methods: Two electron density phantoms were scanned with two CT scanners using two CT scan energ...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/180057 |
| _version_ | 1824456435330711552 |
|---|---|
| author | Koh, Calvin Wei Yang Lew, Kah Seng Wibawa, Andrew Master, Zubin Yeap, Ping Lin Chua, Clifford Ghee Ann Lee, James Cheow Lei Tan, Hong Qi Park, Sung Yong |
| author2 | School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences |
| author_facet | School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Koh, Calvin Wei Yang Lew, Kah Seng Wibawa, Andrew Master, Zubin Yeap, Ping Lin Chua, Clifford Ghee Ann Lee, James Cheow Lei Tan, Hong Qi Park, Sung Yong |
| author_sort | Koh, Calvin Wei Yang |
| collection | NTU |
| description | Background and Purpose: This work introduces the first assessment of CT calibration following the ESTRO's consensus guidelines and validating the HLUT through the irradiation of biological material. Methods: Two electron density phantoms were scanned with two CT scanners using two CT scan energies. The stopping power ratio (SPR) and mass density (MD) HLUTs for different CT scan energies were derived using Schneider's and ESTRO's methods. The comparison metric in this work is based on the Water-Equivalent Thickness (WET) difference between the treatment planning system and biological irradiation measurement. The SPR HLUTs were compared between the two calibration methods. To assess the accuracy of using MD HLUT for dose calculation in the treatment planning system, MD vs SPR HLUT was compared. Lastly, the feasibility of using a single SPR HLUT to replace two different energy CT scans was explored. Results: The results show a WET difference of less than 3.5% except for the result in the Bone region between Schneider's and ESTRO's methods. Comparing MD and SPR HLUT, the results from MD HLUT show less than a 3.5% difference except for the Bone region. However, the SPR HLUT shows a lower mean absolute percentage difference as compared to MD HLUT between the measured and calculated WET difference. Lastly, it is possible to use a single SPR HLUT for two different CT scan energies since both WET differences are within 3.5%. Conclusion: This is the first report on calibrating an HLUT following the ESTRO's guidelines. While our result shows incremental improvement in range uncertainty using the ESTRO's guideline, the prescriptional approach of the guideline does promote harmonization of CT calibration protocols between different centres. |
| first_indexed | 2025-02-19T03:54:03Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | ntu-10356/180057 |
| institution | Nanyang Technological University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-02-19T03:54:03Z |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | ntu-10356/1800572024-09-16T15:34:53Z First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre Koh, Calvin Wei Yang Lew, Kah Seng Wibawa, Andrew Master, Zubin Yeap, Ping Lin Chua, Clifford Ghee Ann Lee, James Cheow Lei Tan, Hong Qi Park, Sung Yong School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Physics CT calibration Range uncertainty Background and Purpose: This work introduces the first assessment of CT calibration following the ESTRO's consensus guidelines and validating the HLUT through the irradiation of biological material. Methods: Two electron density phantoms were scanned with two CT scanners using two CT scan energies. The stopping power ratio (SPR) and mass density (MD) HLUTs for different CT scan energies were derived using Schneider's and ESTRO's methods. The comparison metric in this work is based on the Water-Equivalent Thickness (WET) difference between the treatment planning system and biological irradiation measurement. The SPR HLUTs were compared between the two calibration methods. To assess the accuracy of using MD HLUT for dose calculation in the treatment planning system, MD vs SPR HLUT was compared. Lastly, the feasibility of using a single SPR HLUT to replace two different energy CT scans was explored. Results: The results show a WET difference of less than 3.5% except for the result in the Bone region between Schneider's and ESTRO's methods. Comparing MD and SPR HLUT, the results from MD HLUT show less than a 3.5% difference except for the Bone region. However, the SPR HLUT shows a lower mean absolute percentage difference as compared to MD HLUT between the measured and calculated WET difference. Lastly, it is possible to use a single SPR HLUT for two different CT scan energies since both WET differences are within 3.5%. Conclusion: This is the first report on calibrating an HLUT following the ESTRO's guidelines. While our result shows incremental improvement in range uncertainty using the ESTRO's guideline, the prescriptional approach of the guideline does promote harmonization of CT calibration protocols between different centres. Published version Hong Qi Tan is supported by the Duke-NUS Oncology Academic Program Goh Foundation Proton Research Programme (08/FY2021/EX (SL)/92-A146), Clinical & Systems Innovation Support – Innovation Seed Grant (08/FY2022/P2/02-A68). Calvin Wei Yang Koh is supported by the Ministry of Health, Singapore, MOH Health Innovation Fund (MH 110:12/12-30). 2024-09-11T05:30:56Z 2024-09-11T05:30:56Z 2024 Journal Article Koh, C. W. Y., Lew, K. S., Wibawa, A., Master, Z., Yeap, P. L., Chua, C. G. A., Lee, J. C. L., Tan, H. Q. & Park, S. Y. (2024). First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre. Physica Medica, 120, 103341-. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103341 1120-1797 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/180057 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103341 38554639 2-s2.0-85189098960 120 103341 en Physica Medica © 2024 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica e Sanitaria. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). application/pdf |
| spellingShingle | Physics CT calibration Range uncertainty Koh, Calvin Wei Yang Lew, Kah Seng Wibawa, Andrew Master, Zubin Yeap, Ping Lin Chua, Clifford Ghee Ann Lee, James Cheow Lei Tan, Hong Qi Park, Sung Yong First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre |
| title | First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre |
| title_full | First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre |
| title_fullStr | First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre |
| title_full_unstemmed | First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre |
| title_short | First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre |
| title_sort | first clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre |
| topic | Physics CT calibration Range uncertainty |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/180057 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kohcalvinweiyang firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre AT lewkahseng firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre AT wibawaandrew firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre AT masterzubin firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre AT yeappinglin firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre AT chuacliffordgheeann firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre AT leejamescheowlei firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre AT tanhongqi firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre AT parksungyong firstclinicalexperiencefollowingtheconsensusguideforcalibratingaprotonstoppingpowerratiocurveinanewprotoncentre |