Effect of the Small Field of View and Imaging Parameters to Image Quality and Dose Calculation in Adaptive Radiotherapy

1. Castadot P, Lee JA, Geets X, Grégoire V. Adaptive Radiotherapy of Head and Neck Cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2010;20(2):84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2009.11.002Search in Google Scholar

2. de Smet M, Schuring D, Nijsten S, Verhaegen F. Accuracy of dose calculations on kV cone beam CT images of lung cancer patients. Med Phys. 2016;43(11):5934-5940. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4964455Search in Google Scholar

3. Kataria T, Gupta D, Bisht SS, et al. Adaptive radiotherapy in lung cancer: Dosimetric benefits and clinical outcome. British Journal of Radiology. 2014;87(1038). https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130643Search in Google Scholar

4. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is Cone-Beam CT and How Does it Work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52(4):707-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005Search in Google Scholar

5. Veiga C, McClelland J, Moinuddin S, et al. Toward adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck patients: Feasibility study on using CT-to-CBCT deformable registration for “dose of the day” calculations. Med Phys. 2014;41(3). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4864240Search in Google Scholar

6. Ding GX, Duggan DM, Coffey CW, et al. A study on adaptive IMRT treatment planning using kV cone-beam CT. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2007;85(1):116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2007.06.015Search in Google Scholar

7. Abe T, Tateoka K, Saito Y, et al. Method for Converting Cone-Beam CT Values into Hounsfield Units for Radiation Treatment Planning. Int J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol. 2017;6(4):361-375. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2017.64032Search in Google Scholar

8. Mail N, Moseley DJ, Siewerdsen JH, Jaffray DA. The influence of bowtie filtration on cone-beam CT image quality. Med Phys. 2009;36(1):22-32. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3017470Search in Google Scholar

9. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: Are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2015;44(1). https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140238Search in Google Scholar

10. Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A. The Calibration of CT Hounsfield Units for Radiotherapy Treatment Planning. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41(1):111. http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/41/1/009Search in Google Scholar

11. Kamath S, Song W, Chvetsov A, et al. An Image Quality Comparison Study between XVI and OBI CBCT Systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011;12(2):3435; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3435Search in Google Scholar

12. Song WY, Kamath S, Ozawa S, et al. A dose comparison study between XVI® and OBI® CBCT systems. Med Phys. 2008;35(2):480-486. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2825619Search in Google Scholar

13. Taniguchi T, Hara T, Shimozato T, et al. Effect of computed tomography value error on dose calculation in adaptive radiotherapy with Elekta X-ray volume imaging cone beam computed tomography. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021;22(9):271-279. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13384Search in Google Scholar

14. Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH, Wong JW, Martinez AA. Flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2002;53(5):1337-1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02884-5Search in Google Scholar

15. Hyer DE, Serago CF, Kim S, Li JG, Hintenlang DE. An organ and effective dose study of XVI and OBI cone-beam CT systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11(2):181-197. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i2.3183Search in Google Scholar

16. Oborska-Kumaszyńska D, Northover D. EP-1723: Optimisation of an Elekta XVI (R.5.0.2) system for clinical protocols – image quality vs dose. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2017;123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(17)32255-7Search in Google Scholar

17. Schulze R, Heil U, Groß D, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: A review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2011;40(5):265-273. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039Search in Google Scholar

18. Souleyman S, Maria K, Cheikh T, Karima KK. Impact of acquisition protocols on accuracy of dose calculation based on xvi cone beam computed tomography. J Med Phys. 2021;46(2):94-104. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_128_20Search in Google Scholar

19. Little DP. Image quality improvement for medium and large field of view Elekta XVI scans. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2019;42(4):1153-1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00817-7Search in Google Scholar

20. Srnivasan K, Mohammadi M, Shepherd J. Applications of linac-mounted kilovoltage Cone-beam Computed Tomography in modern radiation therapy: A review. Pol J Radiol. 2014;79:181-193. https://doi.org/10.12659/PJR.890745Search in Google Scholar

21. Rong Y, Smilowitz J, Tewatia D, Tomé WA, Paliwal B. Dose Calculation on KV Cone Beam CT Images: An Investigation of the Hu-Density Conversion Stability and Dose Accuracy Using the Site-Specific Calibration. Medical Dosimetry. 2010;35(3):195-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2009.06.001Search in Google Scholar

22. Hansen MS, Kellman P. Image reconstruction: An overview for clinicians. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2015;41(3):573-585. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24687Search in Google Scholar

23. Rached PA, Lio J, Canola C, et al. Computed Tomographic-Dacryocystography (CT-DCG) of the Normal Canine Nasolacrimal Drainage System with Three-Dimensional Reconstruction. Vet Ophthalmol. 2011;14(3):174-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-5224.2010.00861.xSearch in Google Scholar

24. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36(11):5359-5373. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104Search in Google Scholar

25. Sarria GR, Schmitt H, Jahnke L, et al. Cone Beam CT-Based Daily Adaptive Planning or Defined-Filling Protocol for Neoadjuvant Gastric Cancer Radiation Therapy: A Comparison. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2021;6(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2020.09.026Search in Google Scholar

26. Mynampati DK, Yaparpalvi R, Hong L, Kuo HC, Mah D. Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc: Therapy (VMAT). J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13(5):108-116. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3382Search in Google Scholar

27. ICRU Report 62: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. Published online November 1, 1999.Search in Google Scholar

28. Cozzi L, Fogliata A, Buffa F, Bieri S. Dosimetric impact of computed tomography calibration on a commercial treatment planning system for external radiation therapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 1998;48(3):335-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(98)00072-3Search in Google Scholar

29. Barateau A, de Crevoisier R, Largent A, et al. Comparison of CBCT-based dose calculation methods in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: from Hounsfield unit to density calibration curve to deep learning. Med Phys. 2020;47(10):4683-4693. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14387Search in Google Scholar

30. Dunlop A, McQuaid D, Nill S, et al. Vergleich unterschiedlicher CT-Kalibrierungsmethoden zur Dosisberechnung auf Basis der Kegelstrahlcomputertomographie. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie. 2015;191(12):970-978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-015-0890-7Search in Google Scholar

31. Rafic M, Ravindran P. Evaluation of on-board imager cone beam CT hounsfield units for treatment planning using rigid image registration. J Cancer Res Ther. 2015;11(4):690-696. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.146087Search in Google Scholar