Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The dependence of computed tomography number to relative electron density conversion on phantom geometry and its impact on planned dose

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A computed tomography number to relative electron density (CT-RED) calibration is performed when commissioning a radiotherapy CT scanner by imaging a calibration phantom with inserts of specified RED and recording the CT number displayed. In this work, CT-RED calibrations were generated using several commercially available phantoms to observe the effect of phantom geometry on conversion to electron density and, ultimately, the dose calculation in a treatment planning system. Using an anthropomorphic phantom as a gold standard, the CT number of a material was found to depend strongly on the amount and type of scattering material surrounding the volume of interest, with the largest variation observed for the highest density material tested, cortical bone. Cortical bone gave a maximum CT number difference of 1,110 when a cylindrical insert of diameter 28 mm scanned free in air was compared to that in the form of a 30 × 30 cm2 slab. The effect of using each CT-RED calibration on planned dose to a patient was quantified using a commercially available treatment planning system. When all calibrations were compared to the anthropomorphic calibration, the largest percentage dose difference was 4.2 % which occurred when the CT-RED calibration curve was acquired with heterogeneity inserts removed from the phantom and scanned free in air. The maximum dose difference observed between two dedicated CT-RED phantoms was ±2.1 %. A phantom that is to be used for CT-RED calibrations must have sufficient water equivalent scattering material surrounding the heterogeneous objects that are to be used for calibration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IAEA TECDOC-1603 (2008) The Role of PET/CT in Radiation Treatment Planning for Cancer Patient Treatment. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria

  2. Constantinou C, Harrington J, DeWerd L (1992) An electron density calibration phantom for CT-based treatment planning computers. Med Phys 19(2):325–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Millner MR, McDavid WD, Waggener RG, Dennis MJ, Payne WH, Sank VJ (1978) Extraction of information from CT scans at different energies. Med Phys 6(1):70–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ebert MA, Lambert J, Greer PB (2008) CT-ED conversion on a GE Lightspeed-RT scanner: influence of scanner settings. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 31(2):154–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Guan H, Yin FF, Kim JH (2002) Accuracy of inhomogeneity correction in photon radiotherapy from CT scans with different settings. Phys Med Biol 47:N223–N231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nobah A, Moftah B, Tomic N, Devic S (2011) Influence of electron density spatial distribution and X-ray beam quality during CT simulation on dose calculation accuracy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 12(3):80–89

    Google Scholar 

  7. Groell R, Rienmueller R, Schaffler GJ, Portugaller HR, Graif E, Willfurth P (2000) CT number variations due to different image acquisition and reconstruction parameters: a thorax phantom study. Comput Med Imaging Graph 24:53–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Baxter BS, Sorenson JA (1981) Factors affecting the measurement of size and CT number in computed tomography. Invest Radiol 16:337–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cozzi L, Fogliata A, Buffa F, Bieri S (1998) Dosimetric impact of computed tomography calibration on a commercial treatment planning system for external radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 48:335–338

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomas SJ (1999) Relative electron density calibration of CT scanners for radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol 72:781–786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kilby W, Sage J, Rabett V (2002) Tolerance levels for quality assurance of electron density values generated from CT in radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 47:1485–1492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. AAPM Report no. 1 (1977) Phantoms for performance evaluation and quality assurance of CT scanners. Chicago, Illinois

  13. Ebert MA, Harrison KM, Howlett SJ, Cornes D, Bulsara M, Hamilton CS, Kron T, Joseph DJ, Denham W (2011) Dosimetric intercomparison for mulitcenter clinical trials using a patient-based anatomic pelvic phantom. Med Phys 38:5167–5175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Brooks RA, Di Chiro G (1976) Beam hardening in X-ray reconstructive tomography. Phys Med Biol 21:390–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. IAEA TECDOC-1583 (2008) Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Testing for typical external beam treatment techniques. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria

  16. ICRU Report 44 (1989) Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, USA

  17. Mayles WPM, Lake R, McKenzie A, Macaulay EM, Morgan HM, Jordan TJ, Powley SK (1999) Physics aspects of quality control in radiotherapy. The Insitute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York

    Google Scholar 

  18. IAEA Technical Report Series no. 430 (2004) Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning system for radiation treatment of cancer. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia

    Emma K. Inness, Vaughan Moutrie & Paul H. Charles

  2. School of Chemistry, Physics, and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia

    Paul H. Charles

Authors
  1. Emma K. Inness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vaughan Moutrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul H. Charles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emma K. Inness.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Inness, E.K., Moutrie, V. & Charles, P.H. The dependence of computed tomography number to relative electron density conversion on phantom geometry and its impact on planned dose. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 37, 385–391 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-014-0272-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-014-0272-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation