PMID- 36908500
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
LR  - 20231031
IS  - 0971-6203 (Print)
IS  - 1998-3913 (Electronic)
IS  - 0971-6203 (Linking)
VI  - 47
IP  - 4
DP  - 2022 Oct-Dec
TI  - Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based 
      Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss.
PG  - 344-351
LID - 10.4103/jmp.jmp_7_22 [doi]
AB  - PURPOSE: This investigation compares three commercial methods of cone-beam 
      computed tomography (CBCT)-based dosimetric analysis to a method based on repeat 
      computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen head-and-neck patients 
      treated in 2020, and with a repeat CT, were included in the analyses. The 
      planning CT was deformed to anatomy in repeat CT to generate a reference plan. 
      Two of the CBCT-based methods generated test plans by deforming the planning CT 
      to CBCT of fraction N using VelocityAI and SmartAdapt((R)). The third method 
      compared directly calculated doses on the CBCT for fraction 1 and fraction N, 
      using PerFraction. Maximum dose to spinal cord (Cord_dmax) and dose to 95% 
      volume (D95) of planning target volumes (PTVs) were used to assess "need to 
      replan" criteria. RESULTS: The VelocityAI method provided results that most 
      accurately matched the reference plan in "need to replan" criteria using either 
      Cord_dmax or PTV D95. SmartAdapt((R)) method overestimated the change in Cord_dmax 
      (6.77% vs. 3.85%, P < 0.01) and change in cord volume (9.56% vs. 0.67%, P < 0.01) 
      resulting in increased false positives in "need to replan" criteria, and 
      performed similarly to VelocityAI for D95, but yielded more false negatives. 
      PerFraction method underestimated Cord_dmax, did not perform any volume 
      deformation, and missed all "need to replan" cases based on cord dose. It also 
      yielded high false negatives using the D95 PTV criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The 
      VelocityAI-based method using fraction N CBCT is most similar to the reference 
      plan using repeat CT; the other two methods had significant differences.
CI  - Copyright: (c) 2023 Journal of Medical Physics.
FAU - Rathee, Satyapal
AU  - Rathee S
AD  - Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AD  - Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
FAU - Burke, Benjamin
AU  - Burke B
AD  - Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AD  - Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
FAU - Heikal, Amr
AU  - Heikal A
AD  - Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AD  - Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20230110
PL  - India
TA  - J Med Phys
JT  - Journal of medical physics
JID - 9441104
PMC - PMC9997542
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Cone-beam computed tomography
OT  - deformable registration
OT  - head and neck
OT  - weight loss
COIS- There are no conflicts of interest.
EDAT- 2023/03/14 06:00
MHDA- 2023/03/14 06:01
PMCR- 2022/10/01
CRDT- 2023/03/13 03:47
PHST- 2022/01/28 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2022/08/27 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2022/09/02 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2023/03/13 03:47 [entrez]
PHST- 2023/03/14 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2023/03/14 06:01 [medline]
PHST- 2022/10/01 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - JMP-47-344 [pii]
AID - 10.4103/jmp.jmp_7_22 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Med Phys. 2022 Oct-Dec;47(4):344-351. doi: 10.4103/jmp.jmp_7_22. Epub 2023 Jan 
      10.