Prediction of proton stopping power ratios using dual‐energy CT basis material decomposition

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundProton radiotherapy treatment plans are currently restricted by the range uncertainties originating from the stopping power ratio (SPR) prediction based on single‐energy computed tomography (SECT). Various studies have shown that multi‐energy CT (MECT) can reduce the range uncertainties due to medical implant materials and age‐related variations in tissue composition. None of these has directly applied the basis material density (MD) images produced by projection‐based MECT systems for SPR prediction.PurposeTo present and evaluate a novel proton SPR prediction method based on MD images from dual‐energy CT (DECT), which could reduce the range uncertainties currently associated with proton radiotherapy.MethodsA theoretical basis material decomposition into water and iodine material densities was performed for various pediatric and adult human reference tissues, as well as other non‐tissue materials, by minimizing the root‐mean‐square relative attenuation error in the energy interval from 40 to 140 keV. A model (here called MD‐SPR) mapping predicted MDs to theoretically calculated reference SPRs was created with locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) data‐fitting. The goodness of fit of the MD‐SPR model was evaluated for the included reference tissues. MD images of two electron density phantoms, combined to form a head‐ and an abdomen‐sized phantom setup, were acquired with a clinical projection‐based fast‐kV switching DECT scanner. The MD images were compared to the theoretically predicted MDs of the tissue surrogates and other non‐tissue materials in the phantoms, as well as used for input to the MD‐SPR model for generation of SPR images. The SPR images were subsequently compared to theoretical reference SPRs of the materials in the phantoms, as well as to SPR images from a commercial algorithm (DirectSPR, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) using image‐based consecutive scan DECT for the same phantom setups.ResultsThe predicted SPRs of the tissue surrogates were similar for MD‐SPR and DirectSPR, where the adipose and bone tissue surrogates were within 1% difference to the reference SPRs, while other non‐adipose soft tissue surrogates (breast, brain, liver, muscle) were all underestimated by between −0.7% and −1.8%. The SPRs of the non‐tissue materials (polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), graphite and Teflon) were within 2.8% for MD‐SPR images, compared to 6.8% for DirectSPR.ConclusionsThe MD‐SPR model performed similar compared to other published methods for the human reference tissues. The SPR prediction for tissue surrogates was similar to DirectSPR and showed potential to improve SPR prediction for non‐tissue materials.