Comparison of tissue characterization curves for different CT scanners: Implication in proton therapy treatment planning

Translational Cancer Research

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 236-246

  Cheng, Chee Wai ^a,b   Zhao, Li ^a,b   Wolanski, Mark ^a,b   Zhao, Qingya ^a,c   James, Josuha ^d   Dikeman, Kate ^d   Mills, Michael ^d   Li, Mei ^e   Srivastava, Shiv P ^f,h   Lu, Xing Qi ^g   Das, Indra J ^a,b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Parkview Health ^*  (United States)

^d University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^e MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^f PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^h Reid Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

CT scanner; Dosimetric uncertainty; Electron density; Proton beam; Relative stopping power

Indexed keywords

EID: 84962629585     PISSN: 2218676X     EISSN: 22196803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2218-676X.2012.11.05     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Levi C, Gray JE, McCullough EC, et al. The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982;139:443-7.
2. Faulkner K, Moores BM. Variations in measured computed tomography number values. Radiography 1985;51:163-7.
3. Constantinou C, Harrington JC, DeWerd LA. An electron density calibration phantom for CT-based treatment planning computers. Med Phys 1992;19:325-7.
4. Coolens C, Childs PJ. Calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning of patients with metallic hip prostheses: the use of the extended CT-scale. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:1591-603.
5. Cozzi L, Fogliata A, Buffa F, et al. Dosimetric impact of computed tomography calibration on a commercial treatment planning system for external radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 1998;48:335-8.
6. Kilby W, Sage J, Rabett V. Tolerance levels for quality assurance of electron density values generated from CT in radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 2002;47:1485-92.
7. Thomas SJ. Relative electron density calibration of CT scanners for radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol 1999;72:781-6.
8. Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A. The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:111-24.
9. Bichsel H. eds. Passage of charged particles through matter, In American Institute of Physics Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
10. Yohannes I, Kolditz D, Kalender WA. Semiempirical analysis of materials' elemental composition to formulate tissue-equivalent materials: a preliminary study. Phys Med Biol 2011;56:2963-77.
11. Yohannes I, Kolditz D, Langner O, et al. A formulation of tissue-and water-equivalent materials using the stoichiometric analysis method for CT-number calibration in radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 2012;57:1173-90.
12. ICRU Report 44. Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. In. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1989.
13. Schaffner B, Pedroni E. The precision of proton range calculations in proton radiotherapy treatment planning: experimental verification of the relation between CT-HU and proton stopping power. Phys Med Biol 1998;43:1579-92.
14. Qi ZY, Huang SM, Deng XW. Calibration of CT values used for radiation treatment planning and its impact factors. Ai Zheng 2006;25:110-4.
15. Langen KM, Meeks SL, Poole DO, et al. The use of megavoltage CT (MVCT) images for dose recomputations. Phys Med Biol 2005;50:4259-76.
16. ICRU Report 49. Stopping Powers and Ranges for Protons and Alpha Particles. In. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1993.
17. Yang M, Virshup G, Mohan R, et al. Improving accuracy of electron density measurement in the presence of metallic implants using orthovoltage computed tomography. Med Phys 2008;35:1932-41.
18. Clasie B, Depauw N, Fransen M, et al. Golden beam data for proton pencil-beam scanning. Phys Med Biol 2012;57:1147-58.