% 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{Thummerer:165913,
author = {A. Thummerer and B. A. de Jong and P. Zaffino and A.
Meijers and G. G. Marmitt and J. Seco$^*$ and R. J. H. M.
Steenbakkers and J. A. Langendijk and S. Both and M. F.
Spadea and A.-C. Knopf},
title = {{C}omparison of the suitability of {CBCT}- and {MR}-based
synthetic {CT}s for daily adaptive proton therapy in head
and neck patients.},
journal = {Physics in medicine and biology},
volume = {65},
number = {23},
issn = {1361-6560},
address = {Bristol},
publisher = {IOP Publ.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2020-02470},
pages = {235036},
year = {2020},
abstract = {CBCT- and MR-images allow a daily observation of patient
anatomy but are not directly suited for accurate proton dose
calculations. This can be overcome by creating synthetic CTs
(sCT) using deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN). In
this study, we compared sCTs based on CBCTs and MRs for head
and neck cancer patients in terms of image quality and
proton dose calculation accuracy. A dataset of 27
$H\&N-patients,$ treated with proton therapy, containing
planning CTs, repeat CTs, CBCTs and MRs were used to train
two neural networks to convert either CBCTs or MRs into
synthetic CTs. Image quality was quantified by calculating
mean absolute error (MAE), mean error (ME) and dice
similarity coefficient (DSC) for bones. The dose evaluation
consisted of a systematic non-clinical analysis and a
clinical recalculation of actually used proton treatment
plans. Gamma analysis was performed for non-clinical and
clinical treatment plans. For clinical treatment plans also
dose to targets and organs at risk (OARs) and normal tissue
complication probabilities (NTCP) were compared. CBCT-based
sCTs resulted in higher image quality with an average MAE of
40±4 HU and a DSC of 0.95, while for MR-based sCTs a MAE of
65±4 HU and a DSC of 0.89 was observed. Also in clinical
proton dose calculations, sCTCBCT achieved higher average
gamma pass ratios $(2\%/2mm$ criterion) than sCTMR $(96.1\%$
vs. $93.3\%).$ Dose-volume histograms for selected OARs and
NTCP-values showed a very small difference between sCTCBCT
and sCTMR and a high agreement with the reference
planning-CT. CBCT- and MR-based sCTs have the potential to
enable accurate proton dose calculations valuable for daily
adaptive proton therapy. Significant image quality
differences were observed but did not affect proton dose
calculation accuracy in a similar manner. Especially the
recalculation of clinical treatment plans showed high
agreement with the planning CT for both sCTCBCT and sCTMR.},
cin = {E041},
ddc = {530},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E041-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:33179874},
doi = {10.1088/1361-6560/abb1d6},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/165913},
}