% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Handrack:147498,
author = {J. Handrack$^*$ and M. Bangert$^*$ and C. Möhler and T.
Bostel$^*$ and K.-S. Greilich$^*$},
title = {{T}owards a generalised development of synthetic {CT}
images and assessment of their dosimetric accuracy.},
journal = {Acta oncologica},
volume = {59},
number = {2},
issn = {0001-6926},
address = {Abingdon},
publisher = {Taylor $\&$ Francis Group},
reportid = {DKFZ-2019-02554},
pages = {180-187},
year = {2020},
note = {2020 Feb;59(2):180-187.#EA:E040#LA:E040#},
abstract = {Background: The interest in generating 'synthetic computed
tomography (CT) images' from magnetic resonance (MR) images
has been increasing over the past years due to advances in
MR guidance for radiotherapy. A variety of methods for
synthetic CT creation have been developed, from simple bulk
density assignment to complex machine learning
algorithms.Material and methods: In this study, we present a
general method to determine simplistic synthetic CTs and
evaluate them according to their dosimetric accuracy. It
separates the requirements on the MR image and the
associated calculation effort to generate a synthetic CT. To
evaluate the significance of the dosimetric accuracy under
realistic conditions, clinically common uncertainties
including position shifts and Hounsfield lookup table (HLUT)
errors were simulated. To illustrate our approach, we first
translated CT images from a test set of six pelvic cancer
patients to relative electron density (ED) via a clinical
HLUT. For each patient, seven simplified ED images (simED)
were generated at different levels of complexity, ranging
from one to four tissue classes. Then, dose distributions
optimised on the reference ED image and the simEDs were
compared to each other in terms of gamma pass rates
$(2 mm/2\%$ criteria) and dose volume metrics.Results: For
our test set, best results were obtained for simEDs with
four tissue classes representing fat, soft tissue, air, and
bone. For this simED, gamma pass rates of $99.95\%$ (range:
$99.72-100\%)$ were achieved. The decrease in accuracy from
ED simplification was smaller in this case than the
influence of the uncertainty scenarios on the reference
image, both for gamma pass rates and dose volume
metrics.Conclusions: The presented workflow helps to
determine the required complexity of synthetic CTs with
respect to their dosimetric accuracy. The investigated cases
showed potential simplifications, based on which the
synthetic CT generation could be faster and more
reproducible.},
cin = {E040 / E050},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:31694437},
doi = {10.1080/0284186X.2019.1684558},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/147498},
}