Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning Protocols for Online Adaptive Proton Therapy of Head-and-Neck Cancers.

Abstract

Simple SummaryAdaptive proton therapy requires taking images over the course of treatment to correct the plan for anatomy changes. Most workflows assume daily imaging for this purpose. The associated imaging doses can be significant, which may compromise one of the proton therapy aims: minimizing the dose to healthy tissue. Low-dose scanning protocols address this problem. In this paper, we evaluate the influence of low-dose CT protocols on adaptation. We used a head phantom to define the protocols and simulated adaptive treatments of 10 head-and-neck patients with our established adaptation framework. We assessed the influence of lower image quality on the contour propagation and dose calculation. We demonstrated that decreasing the imaging dose by a factor of 40 with respect to our standard CT scanning protocol does not affect the adaptation performance.Purpose: To evaluate the suitability of low-dose CT protocols for online plan adaptation of head-and-neck patients. Methods: We acquired CT scans of a head phantom with protocols corresponding to CT dose index volume CTDIvol in the range of 4.2–165.9 mGy. The highest value corresponds to the standard protocol used for CT simulations of 10 head-and-neck patients included in the study. The minimum value corresponds to the lowest achievable tube current of the GE Discovery RT scanner used for the study. For each patient and each low-dose protocol, the noise relative to the standard protocol, derived from phantom images, was applied to a virtual CT (vCT). The vCT was obtained from a daily CBCT scan corresponding to the fraction with the largest anatomical changes. We ran an established adaptive workflow twice for each low-dose protocol using a high-quality daily vCT and the corresponding low-dose synthetic vCT. For a relative comparison of the adaptation efficacy, two adapted plans were recalculated in the high-quality vCT and evaluated with the contours obtained through deformable registration of the planning CT. We also evaluated the accuracy of dose calculation in low-dose CT volumes using the standard CT protocol as reference. Results: The maximum differences in D98 between low-dose protocols and the standard protocol for the high-risk and low-risk CTV were found to be 0.6% and 0.3%, respectively. The difference in OAR sparing was up to 3%. The Dice similarity coefficient between propagated contours obtained with low-dose and standard protocols was above 0.982. The mean 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate for the lowest-dose image, using the standard protocol as reference, was found to be 99.99%. Conclusion: The differences between low-dose protocols and the standard scanning protocol were marginal. Thus, low-dose CT protocols are suitable for online adaptive proton therapy of head-and-neck cancers. As such, considering scanning protocols used in our clinic, the imaging dose associated with online adaption of head-and-neck cancers treated with protons can be reduced by a factor of 40.