Abstract:Purpose Kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (kVCBCT)‐guided adaptive radiation therapy (ART) uses daily deformed CT (dCT), which is generated automatically through deformable registration methods. These registration methods may perform poorly in reproducing volumes of the target organ, rectum, and bladder during treatment. We analyzed the registration errors between the daily kVCBCTs and corresponding dCTs for these organs using the default optical flow algorithm and two registration procedures. We validated the effectiveness of these registration methods in replicating the geometry for dose calculation on kVCBCT for ART. Methods We evaluated three deformable image registration (DIR) methods to assess their registration accuracy and dose calculation effeciency in mapping target and critical organs. The DIR methods include (1) default intensity‐based deformable registration, (2) hybrid deformable registration, and (3) a two‐step deformable registration process. Each technique was applied to a computerized imaging reference system (CIRS) phantom (Model 062 M) and to five patients who received volumetric modulated arc therapy to the prostate. Registration accuracy was assessed using the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and each method was compared with the intensity‐based registration method. The improvement in the dCT image quality of the CIRS phantom and five patients was assessed by comparing dCT with kVCBCT. Image quality quantitative metrics for the phantom included the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), uniformity, and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), whereas those for the patients included the mean absolute error (MAE), mean error, peak signal‐to‐noise ratio (PSNR), and structural similarity index measure (SSIM). To determine dose metric differences, we used a dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and 3.0%/0.3 mm gamma analysis to compare planning computed tomography (pCT) and kVCBCT recalculations with restimulated CT images used as a reference. Results The dCT images generated by the hybrid (dCTH) and two‐step (dCTC) registration methods resulted in significant improvements compared to kVCBCT in the phantom model. Specifically, the SNR improved by 107% and 107.2%, the uniformity improved by 90% and 75%, and the CNR improved by 212.2% and 225.6 for dCTH and dCTC methods, respectively. For the patient images, the MAEs improved by 98% and 94%, the PSNRs improved by 16.3% and 22.9%, and the SSIMs improved by 1% and 1% in the dCTH and dCTC methods, respectively. For the geometric evaluation, only the two‐step registration method improved registration accuracy. The dCTH method yielded an average HD95 of 12 mm and average DSC of 0.73, whereas dCTC yielded an average HD95 of 2.9 mm and average DSC of 0.902. The DVH showed that the dCTC‐based dose calculations differed by 95% at all points, whereas they were <95% for kVCBCT‐based treatment plans. Conclusion The two‐step registration method outperforms the intensity‐based and hybrid registration methods. While the hybrid and two‐step‐based methods improved the image quality of kVCBCT in a linear accelerator, only the two‐step method improved the registration accuracy of the corresponding structures among the pCT and kVCBCT datasets. A two‐step registration process is recommended for applying kVCBCT to ART, which achieves better registration accuracy for local and global image structures. This method appears to be beneficial for radiotherapy dose calculation in patients with pelvic cancer.

PAE planning: Radiation exposure and image quality of CT and CBCT

Preliminary study of peripheral artery CT angiography with auto-tube current of different tube voltage and noise index

Variation in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Utilization and Radiation Exposure Associated with Prostatic Artery Embolization on Two Separate Angiography Systems

Optimizing CT Acquisition for Prostate Cancer Radiation Treatment Planning and Delivery

Image Quality and Radiation Dose of CTPA With Iodine Maps: A Prospective Randomized Study of High-Pitch Mode Photon-Counting Detector CT Versus Energy-Integrating Detector CT

Monte Carlo Calculation of Imaging Doses from Diagnostic Multidetector Ct and Kilovoltage Cone-Beam Ct As Part of Prostate Cancer Treatment Plans

The added value of a new high-performance ring-gantry CBCT imaging system for prostate cancer patients

Evaluation of Radiation Exposure and Influential Factors in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) of the Head and Abdomen during Interventional Procedures

Assessment of Patient Organ Doses and Effective Doses Using the VIP-Man Adult Male Phantom for Selected Cone-Beam CT Imaging Procedures During Image Guided Radiation Therapy.

Organ Dose Evaluation for CT Scans Based on In-Phantom Measurements

Effect of arm position on image quality and radiation dose during thorax and abdomen computed tomography scans

Abstract TP138: Image Quality Assessment of Photon Counting Computed Tomography Angiography of the Head and Neck

Study of peripheral dose from low-dose CT to adaptive radiotherapy of postoperative prostate cancer

Radiation protection issues in dynamic contrast-enhanced (perfusion) computed tomography

Application with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and low radiation in the pulmonary angiography

High-Resolution Head CTA: A Prospective Patient Study Comparing Image Quality of Photon-Counting Detector CT and Energy-Integrating Detector CT

Thin slice photon‐counting CT coronary angiography compared to conventional CT: Objective image quality and clinical radiation dose assessment

Dedicated CCTA Followed by High-Pitch Scanning versus TRO-CT for Contrast Media and Radiation Dose Reduction: A Retrospective Study

Evaluation of the geometric and dosimetric accuracies of deformable image registration of targets and critical organs in prostate CBCT‐guided adaptive radiotherapy

Point Organ Radiation Dose in Abdominal CT: Effect of Patient Off-Centering in an Experimental Human Cadaver Study.

Image Quality and Radiation Dose of Lower Extremity CT Angiography Using 70 Kvp, High Pitch Acquisition and Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction.