Comparison of two dual-energy CT-based methods for proton stopping-power ratio estimation in brain cancer patients with metal implants
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.43930Keywords:
Proton therapy, Dual-energy CT, Stopping power ratio, Brain cancerAbstract
Background and purpose: Accurate stopping-power ratio (SPR) estimation is crucial for proton therapy planning. In brain cancer patients with metal clips, SPR accuracy may be affected by high-density materials and imaging artefacts. Dual-energy CT (DECT)-based methods have been shown to improve SPR accuracy. This study evaluated the consistency between two SPR estimation methods in brain cancer patients: (1) a Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) for DECT-generated virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) and (2) the DirectSPR algorithm (Siemens Healthineers).
Patient/material and methods: DECT scans were acquired for 11 brain cancer patients. Two SPR maps were generated: one using a 90 keV VMI with a HLUT and the other via the DirectSPR algorithm. The VMI HLUT was adjusted in high-density regions to align with the SPR of titanium. Clinically applied proton therapy plans were recalculated on both SPR maps and dose distributions were compared using dose-volume histograms. Furthermore, a voxel-wise SPR comparison and a separate titanium implant analysis were performed.
Results: Dose differences between the SPR methods were minimal for organs-at-risk. DirectSPR showed strong SPR agreement with the VMI HLUT approach for CT numbers up to 1500 HU (SPR~1.9). Beyond this, especially in regions with titanium implants, DirectSPR yielded higher SPR values than the VMI HLUT, suggesting an adjustment may also be needed for DirectSPR.
Interpretation: DirectSPR was consistent with the VMI HLUT up to 1500 HU but deviated at higher CT numbers. These deviations had limited impact on dose metrics, but they should be considered when choosing beam orientations.
Downloads
References
Newhauser WD, Zhang R. The physics of proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:R155–209.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/R155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/R155
Paganetti H. Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:R99–117.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/11/R99 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/11/R99
Yang M, Zhu XR, Park PC, Titt U, Mohan R, Virshup G, et al. Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to patient stopping-power-ratio estimation using the stoichiometric calibration. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:4095–115.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/13/4095 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/13/4095
Van Elmpt W, Landry G, Das M, Verhaegen F. Dual energy CT in radiotherapy: current applications and future outlook. Radiother Oncol. 2016;119:137–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.02.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.02.026
Unkelbach J, Alber M, Bangert M, Bokrantz R, Chan TCY, Deasy JO, et al. Robust radiotherapy planning. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63:22TR02.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aae659 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aae659
Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A. The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:111–24.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/41/1/009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/41/1/009
Peters N, Trier Taasti V, Ackermann B, Bolsi A, Vallhagen Dahlgren C, Ellerbrock M, et al. Consensus guide on CT-based prediction of stopping-power ratio using a Hounsfield look-up table for proton therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2023;184:109675.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109675 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109675
Taasti VT, Muren LP, Jensen K, Petersen JBB, Thygesen J, Tietze A, et al. Comparison of single and dual energy CT for stopping power determination in proton therapy of head and neck cancer. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018;6:14–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.04.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.04.002
Wohlfahrt P, Möhler C, Stützer K, Greilich S, Richter C. Dual-energy CT based proton range prediction in head and pelvic tumor patients. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125:526–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.042
Hamid S, Nasir MU, So A, Andrews G, Nicolaou S, Qamar SR. Clinical applications of dual-energy CT. Korean J Radiol. 2021;22:970.
https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0996 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0996
Yu L, Christner JA, Leng S, Wang J, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH. Virtual monochromatic imaging in dual‐source dual‐energy CT: radiation dose and image quality. Med Phys. 2011;38:6371–9.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3658568 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3658568
Wohlfahrt P, Möhler C, Hietschold V, Menkel S, Greilich S, Krause M, et al. Clinical implementation of dual-energy CT for proton treatment planning on pseudo-monoenergetic CT scans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97:427–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.10.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.10.022
Yang M, Virshup G, Clayton J, Zhu XR, Mohan R, Dong L. Theoretical variance analysis of single- and dual-energy computed tomography methods for calculating proton stopping power ratios of biological tissues. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:1343–62.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/5/006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/5/006
Peters N, Wohlfahrt P, Hofmann C, Möhler C, Menkel S, Tschiche M, et al. Reduction of clinical safety margins in proton therapy enabled by the clinical implementation of dual-energy CT for direct stopping-power prediction. Radiother Oncol. 2022;166:71–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.11.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.11.002
Kassaee A, Cheng C, Yin L, Zou W, Li T, Lin A, et al. Dual-energy computed tomography proton-dose calculation with scripting and modified hounsfield units. Int J Part Ther. 2021;8:62–72.
https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00075.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00075.1
Taasti VT, Decabooter E, Eekers D, Compter I, Rinaldi I, Bogowicz M, et al. Clinical benefit of range uncertainty reduction in proton treatment planning based on dual-energy CT for neuro-oncological patients. Br J Radiol. 2023;96:20230110.
https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230110
Andersson KM, Ahnesjö A, Dahlgren CV. Evaluation of a metal artifact reduction algorithm in CT studies used for proton radiotherapy treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:112–9.
https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4857 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4857
Li B, Lee HC, Duan X, Shen C, Zhou L, Jia X, et al. Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to stopping-power-ratio estimation using dual-energy CT imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:7056–74.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa7dc9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa7dc9
Hünemohr N, Krauss B, Tremmel C, Ackermann B, Jäkel O, Greilich S. Experimental verification of ion stopping power prediction from dual energy CT data in tissue surrogates. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:83–96.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/1/83 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/1/83
Tarp IS, Taasti VT, Jensen MF, Vestergaard A, Jensen K. Benefit of range uncertainty reduction in robust optimisation for proton therapy of brain, head-and-neck and breast cancer patients. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2024;31:100632.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2024.100632 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2024.100632
Sarkar V, Paxton A, Su F, Price R, Nelson G, Szegedi M, et al. An evaluation of the use of DirectSPR images for proton planning in the RayStation treatment planning software. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24:e13900.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13900 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13900
Taasti VT, Petersen JBB, Muren LP, Thygesen J, Hansen DC. A robust empirical parametrization of proton stopping power using dual energy CT. Med Phys. 2016;43:5547–60.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4962934 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4962934
Wohlfahrt P, Möhler C, Richter C, Greilich S. Evaluation of stopping-power prediction by dual- and single-energy computed tomography in an anthropomorphic ground-truth phantom. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;100:244–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.09.025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.09.025
Bär E, Lalonde A, Zhang R, Jee K, Yang K, Sharp G, et al. Experimental validation of two dual‐energy CT methods for proton therapy using heterogeneous tissue samples. Med Phys. 2018;45:48–59.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12666 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12666
Yagi M, Wakisaka Y, Takeno J, Kanada S, Tsubouchi T, Hamatani N, et al. Dosimetric impact of stopping power for human bone porosity with dual-energy computed tomography in scanned carbon-ion therapy treatment planning. Sci Rep. 2024;14:17440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68312-y
Kemerink GJ, Lamers RJS, Thelissen GRP, Van Engelshoven JMA. The nonlinear partial volume effect and computed tomography densitometry of foam and lung. Med Phys. 1995;22:1445–50.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597568 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597568
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ivanka Sojat Tarp, Vicki Trier Taasti, Maria Fuglsang Jensen, Ludvig Paul Muren, Kenneth Jensen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
