SU‐FF‐J‐111

On the Estimation of Error in 4D Imaging in Regard to Radiotherapy Tumor Motion Management

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify the accuracy of 4D‐CT as it relates to radiotherapy motion management techniques, specifically determination of tumor motion trajectory (x,y,z)(t), tumor motion envelope, and delineation of the GTV throughout 4D datasets. Methods: An ideal motion tracking configuration was created with a Standard Imaging Respiratory Gating Platform and four glass marbles of various diameter suspended in polyurethane foam. 4D‐CT images were acquired for motion periods and displacements ranging from 3 – 6 s and 1 – 3 cm, respectively. Phase binned 4D images were acquired with a 4‐slice GE LightSpeed CT scanner and RPM tracking system. Scans were performed in cine mode with a 2.5 mm slice thickness and a 0.4 s gantry rotation. Cine mode duration for each scanning position was performed for at least one gantry rotation greater than the phantom motion period. Marbles were autocontoured at −500, 0, 500, 1000, and 1500 HU in all ten phases of the nine total 4DCT image sets. Centroid positions were determined for each auto‐contour threshold. Actual motion trajectories were recorded to compare to the observed. Results: Maximum errors in tumor position throughout a given motion trajectory ranged from 1 – 4 mm. The observed errors showed an inverse relationship with the auto‐contour HU threshold used and a direct relationship with the phantom velocity. Motion envelope underestimations ranged from 0 – 7 mm with the highest CT threshold auto‐contour resulting in the largest error. Conformality indices were also determined for each contoured marble throughout all 4D image sets. Conclusion: Considerable errors in the definition of tumor trajectory and the motion envelope were observed in an idealized motion phantom using clinical imaging acquisition parameters and realistic tumor motion settings. Methods defined are useful in quantifying errors associated with 4D imaging modalities as they relate to radiotherapy motion management. Research supported by Philips Medical Systems.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2501-2502
Number of pages2
JournalMedical Physics
Volume36
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Radiotherapy
Neoplasms
Calcium Carbonate
Glass

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐J‐111 : On the Estimation of Error in 4D Imaging in Regard to Radiotherapy Tumor Motion Management. / Ehler, E.; Tome, Wolfgang A.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2009, p. 2501-2502.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8f88307367bc4c839efb51bc81fd6949,
title = "SU‐FF‐J‐111: On the Estimation of Error in 4D Imaging in Regard to Radiotherapy Tumor Motion Management",
abstract = "Purpose: To quantify the accuracy of 4D‐CT as it relates to radiotherapy motion management techniques, specifically determination of tumor motion trajectory (x,y,z)(t), tumor motion envelope, and delineation of the GTV throughout 4D datasets. Methods: An ideal motion tracking configuration was created with a Standard Imaging Respiratory Gating Platform and four glass marbles of various diameter suspended in polyurethane foam. 4D‐CT images were acquired for motion periods and displacements ranging from 3 – 6 s and 1 – 3 cm, respectively. Phase binned 4D images were acquired with a 4‐slice GE LightSpeed CT scanner and RPM tracking system. Scans were performed in cine mode with a 2.5 mm slice thickness and a 0.4 s gantry rotation. Cine mode duration for each scanning position was performed for at least one gantry rotation greater than the phantom motion period. Marbles were autocontoured at −500, 0, 500, 1000, and 1500 HU in all ten phases of the nine total 4DCT image sets. Centroid positions were determined for each auto‐contour threshold. Actual motion trajectories were recorded to compare to the observed. Results: Maximum errors in tumor position throughout a given motion trajectory ranged from 1 – 4 mm. The observed errors showed an inverse relationship with the auto‐contour HU threshold used and a direct relationship with the phantom velocity. Motion envelope underestimations ranged from 0 – 7 mm with the highest CT threshold auto‐contour resulting in the largest error. Conformality indices were also determined for each contoured marble throughout all 4D image sets. Conclusion: Considerable errors in the definition of tumor trajectory and the motion envelope were observed in an idealized motion phantom using clinical imaging acquisition parameters and realistic tumor motion settings. Methods defined are useful in quantifying errors associated with 4D imaging modalities as they relate to radiotherapy motion management. Research supported by Philips Medical Systems.",
author = "E. Ehler and Tome, {Wolfgang A.}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1118/1.3181403",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "2501--2502",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐J‐111

T2 - On the Estimation of Error in 4D Imaging in Regard to Radiotherapy Tumor Motion Management

AU - Ehler, E.

AU - Tome, Wolfgang A.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Purpose: To quantify the accuracy of 4D‐CT as it relates to radiotherapy motion management techniques, specifically determination of tumor motion trajectory (x,y,z)(t), tumor motion envelope, and delineation of the GTV throughout 4D datasets. Methods: An ideal motion tracking configuration was created with a Standard Imaging Respiratory Gating Platform and four glass marbles of various diameter suspended in polyurethane foam. 4D‐CT images were acquired for motion periods and displacements ranging from 3 – 6 s and 1 – 3 cm, respectively. Phase binned 4D images were acquired with a 4‐slice GE LightSpeed CT scanner and RPM tracking system. Scans were performed in cine mode with a 2.5 mm slice thickness and a 0.4 s gantry rotation. Cine mode duration for each scanning position was performed for at least one gantry rotation greater than the phantom motion period. Marbles were autocontoured at −500, 0, 500, 1000, and 1500 HU in all ten phases of the nine total 4DCT image sets. Centroid positions were determined for each auto‐contour threshold. Actual motion trajectories were recorded to compare to the observed. Results: Maximum errors in tumor position throughout a given motion trajectory ranged from 1 – 4 mm. The observed errors showed an inverse relationship with the auto‐contour HU threshold used and a direct relationship with the phantom velocity. Motion envelope underestimations ranged from 0 – 7 mm with the highest CT threshold auto‐contour resulting in the largest error. Conformality indices were also determined for each contoured marble throughout all 4D image sets. Conclusion: Considerable errors in the definition of tumor trajectory and the motion envelope were observed in an idealized motion phantom using clinical imaging acquisition parameters and realistic tumor motion settings. Methods defined are useful in quantifying errors associated with 4D imaging modalities as they relate to radiotherapy motion management. Research supported by Philips Medical Systems.

AB - Purpose: To quantify the accuracy of 4D‐CT as it relates to radiotherapy motion management techniques, specifically determination of tumor motion trajectory (x,y,z)(t), tumor motion envelope, and delineation of the GTV throughout 4D datasets. Methods: An ideal motion tracking configuration was created with a Standard Imaging Respiratory Gating Platform and four glass marbles of various diameter suspended in polyurethane foam. 4D‐CT images were acquired for motion periods and displacements ranging from 3 – 6 s and 1 – 3 cm, respectively. Phase binned 4D images were acquired with a 4‐slice GE LightSpeed CT scanner and RPM tracking system. Scans were performed in cine mode with a 2.5 mm slice thickness and a 0.4 s gantry rotation. Cine mode duration for each scanning position was performed for at least one gantry rotation greater than the phantom motion period. Marbles were autocontoured at −500, 0, 500, 1000, and 1500 HU in all ten phases of the nine total 4DCT image sets. Centroid positions were determined for each auto‐contour threshold. Actual motion trajectories were recorded to compare to the observed. Results: Maximum errors in tumor position throughout a given motion trajectory ranged from 1 – 4 mm. The observed errors showed an inverse relationship with the auto‐contour HU threshold used and a direct relationship with the phantom velocity. Motion envelope underestimations ranged from 0 – 7 mm with the highest CT threshold auto‐contour resulting in the largest error. Conformality indices were also determined for each contoured marble throughout all 4D image sets. Conclusion: Considerable errors in the definition of tumor trajectory and the motion envelope were observed in an idealized motion phantom using clinical imaging acquisition parameters and realistic tumor motion settings. Methods defined are useful in quantifying errors associated with 4D imaging modalities as they relate to radiotherapy motion management. Research supported by Philips Medical Systems.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024805609&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024805609&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3181403

DO - 10.1118/1.3181403

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 2501

EP - 2502

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -