% 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{Medrano:306683,
author = {M. J. Medrano and X. Chen and L. N. Burigo$^*$ and J. A.
O'Sullivan and J. F. Williamson},
title = {{D}erivation of {T}issue {P}roperties from {B}asis-{V}ector
{M}odel {W}eights for {D}ual-{E}nergy {CT}-{B}ased {M}onte
{C}arlo {P}roton {B}eam {D}ose {C}alculations.},
journal = {Biomedical physics $\&$ engineering express},
volume = {12},
number = {1},
issn = {2057-1976},
address = {Bristol},
publisher = {IOP Publ.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-02675},
pages = {015027},
year = {2026},
note = {2026, Volume 12, Number 1, 015027 / Burigo},
abstract = {We propose a novel method, basis vector model material
indexing (BVM-MI), for predicting atomic composition and
mass density from two independent basis vector model weights
derived from dual-energy CT (DECT) for Monte Carlo (MC) dose
planning. Approach: BVM-MI employs multiple linear
regression on BVM weights and their quotient to predict
elemental composition and mass density for 70 representative
tissues. Predicted values were imported into the TOPAS MC
code to simulate proton dose deposition to a uniform
cylinder phantom composed of each tissue type. The
performance of BVM-MI was compared to the conventional
Hounsfield Unit material indexing method (HU-MI), which
estimates elemental composition and density based on CT
numbers (HU). Evaluation metrics included absolute errors in
predicted elemental compositions and relative percent errors
in calculated mass density and mean excitation energy. Dose
distributions were assessed by quantifying absolute error in
the depth of $80\%$ maximum scored dose (R80) and relative
percent errors in stopping power (SP) between MC simulations
using HU-MI, BVM-MI, and benchmark compositions. Lateral
dose profiles were analyzed at R80 and Bragg Peak (RBP)
depths for three tissues showing the largest R80
discrepancies. Main Results: BVM-MI outperformed HU-MI in
elemental composition predictions, with mean
root-mean-square error (RMSE) of $1.30\%$ (soft tissue) and
$0.1\%$ (bony tissue), compared to $4.20\%$ and $1.9\%$ for
HU-MI. R80 depth RMSEs were 0.2 mm (soft) and 0.1 mm (bony)
for BVM-MI, vs. 1.8 mm and 0.7 mm for HU-MI. Lateral dose
profile analysis showed overall smaller dose errors for
BVM-MI across core, halo, and proximal aura regions
Significance: Fully utilizing the two-parameter BVM space
for material indexing significantly improved TOPAS MC dose
calculations by factors of 7 to 9 in RMS compared to the
conventional HU-MI method demonstrating the potential of
BVM-MI to enhance proton therapy planning, particularly for
tissues with substantial elemental variability.},
keywords = {Basis-vector Model (Other) / Dual-energy CT (Other) /
Material decomposition (Other) / Monte Carlo dose
calculations (Other) / Proton therapy (Other) / Stopping
power estimation (Other) / Tissue property derivation
(Other)},
cin = {E040},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:41325629},
doi = {10.1088/2057-1976/ae2622},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/306683},
}