Vol 26, No 4 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-04-13

open access

Page views 353
Article views/downloads 255
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Dosimetric study of Hounsfield number correction effect in areas influenced by contrast product in lungs case

Yassine Oulhouq12, Dikra Bakari3, Deae-Eddine Krim1, Mustapha Zerfaoui1, Abdeslem Rrhioua1, Soufiane Berhili2, Loubna Mezouar2
DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0083
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(4):590-597.

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was dosimetric effect quantification of exclusive computed tomography (CT) use with an intravenous (IV) contrast agent (CA), on dose distribution of 3D-CRT treatment plans for lung cancer. Furthermore, dosimetric advantage investigation of manually contrast-enhanced region overriding, especially the heart. 

Materials and methods: Ten patients with lung cancer were considered. For each patient two planning CT sets were initially taken with and without CA. Treatment planning were optimized based on CT scans without CA. All plans were copied and recomputed on scans with CA. In addition, scans with IV contrast were copied and density correction was performed for heart contrast enhanced. Same plans were copied and replaced to undo dose calculation errors that may be caused by CA. Eventually, dosimetric evaluations based on dose volume histograms (DVHs) of planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at-risk were studied and analyzed using the Wilcoxon’s signed rank test.

Results: There is no statistically significant difference in dose calculation for the PTV maximum, mean, minimum doses, spinal cord maximum doses and lung volumes that received 20 and 30 Gy, between planes calculated with and without contrast scans (p > 0.05) and also for contrast scan, with manual regions overriding.

Conclusions: Dose difference caused by the contrast agent is negligible and not significant. Therefore, there is no justification to perform two scans, and using an IV contrast enhanced scan for dose calculation is sufficient.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Washington CM, Leaver DT. Principles and practice of radiation therapy, 4th ed. Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis 2016.
  2. Patz EF, Erasmus JJ, McAdams HP, et al. Lung cancer staging and management: comparison of contrast-enhanced and nonenhanced helical CT of the thorax. Radiology. 1999; 212(1): 56–60.
  3. Cascade PN, Gross BH, Kazerooni EA, et al. Variability in the detection of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes in staging lung cancer: a comparison of contrast-enhanced and unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 170(4): 927–931.
  4. Takahashi M, Nitta N, Takazakura R, et al. Detection of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes by 16-row MDCT: is contrast material needed? Eur J Radiol. 2008; 66(2): 287–291.
  5. Abuhijla F, Al-Mousa A, Abuhijlih R, et al. Variables altering the impact of respiratory gated CT simulation on planning target volume in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2019; 24(2): 175–179.
  6. Adamczyk M, Kruszyna-Mochalska M, Rucińska A, et al. Software simulation of tumour motion dose effects during flattened and unflattened ITV-based VMAT lung SBRT. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020; 25(4): 684–691.
  7. Vojtíšek R. Cardiac toxicity of lung cancer radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020; 25(1): 13–19.
  8. Abdel-Wahab M, Bourque JM, Pynda Y, et al. Status of radiotherapy resources in Africa: an International Atomic Energy Agency analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(4): e168–e175.
  9. Wippold FJ. CT and MR imaging of head and neck cancer. In: Chao KS, Ozyigit G. ed. Intensity modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, 4th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia : 18–29.
  10. Eisbruch A. Head and neck cancer: overview. In: Mundt AJ, Roeske JC. ed. Intensity modulated radiation therapy: a clinical perspective. BC Decker Inc, Ontario 2005: 264–75.
  11. Nasrollah J, Mikaeil M, Omid E, et al. Influence of the intravenous contrast media on treatment planning dose calculations of lower esophageal and rectal cancers. J Cancer Res Ther. 2014; 10(1): 147–152.
  12. Choi Y, Kim JK, Lee HS, et al. Influence of intravenous contrast agent on dose calculations of intensity modulated radiation therapy plans for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2006; 81(2): 158–162.
  13. Wertz H, Jäkel O. Influence of iodine contrast agent on the range of ion beams for radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2004; 31(4): 767–773.
  14. Meng Y, Yang H, Wang W, et al. Excluding PTV from lung volume may better predict radiation pneumonitis for intensity modulated radiation therapy in lung cancer patients. Radiat Oncol. 2019; 14(1): 7.
  15. Shaw E, Kline R, Gillin M, et al. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993; 27(5): 1231–1239.
  16. Oulhouq Y, Rrhioua A, Zerfaoui M, et al. Dosimetric Effect Resulting From the Collimator Angle, the Isocenter Move, and the Gantry Angle Errors. Iran J Med Phys. 2019; 16: 355–361.
  17. Petrova D, Smickovska S, Lazarevska E. Conformity Index and Homogeneity Index of the Postoperative Whole Breast Radiotherapy. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2017; 5(6): 736–739.
  18. Feuvret L, Noël G, Mazeron JJ, et al. Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 64(2): 333–342.
  19. Guy CL, Weiss E, Che S, et al. Evaluation of Image Registration Accuracy for Tumor and Organs at Risk in the Thorax for Compliance With TG 132 Recommendations. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2019; 4(1): 177–185.
  20. Huttenlocher DP, Klanderman GA, Rucklidge WJ. Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1993; 15(9): 850–863.
  21. Kumarasiri A, Siddiqui F, Liu C, et al. Deformable image registration based automatic CT-to-CT contour propagation for head and neck adaptive radiotherapy in the routine clinical setting. Med Phys. 2014; 41(12): 121712.
  22. Fabri D, Zambrano V, Bhatia A, et al. A quantitative comparison of the performance of three deformable registration algorithms in radiotherapy. Z Med Phys. 2013; 23(4): 279–290.
  23. Scaggion A, Fiandra C, Loi G, et al. Free-to-use DIR solutions in radiotherapy: Benchmark against commercial platforms through a contour-propagation study. Phys Med. 2020; 74: 110–117.
  24. Liauw SL, Amdur RJ, Mendenhall WM, et al. The effect of intravenous contrast on intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose calculations for head and neck cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005; 28(5): 456–459.
  25. Choi Y, Kim JK, Lee HS, et al. Influence of intravenous contrast agent on dose calculations of intensity modulated radiation therapy plans for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2006; 81(2): 158–162.
  26. Létourneau D, Finlay M, O'Sullivan B, et al. Lack of influence of intravenous contrast on head and neck IMRT dose distributions. Acta Oncol. 2008; 47(1): 90–94.
  27. Kimlin K, Mitchell J, Knight RT. Effects of iodinated contrast media on radiation therapy dosimetry for pathologies within the thorax. Radiographer. 2013; 53(2): 30–34.
  28. Shi W, Liu C, Lu Bo, et al. The effect of intravenous contrast on photon radiation therapy dose calculations for lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2010; 33(2): 153–156.
  29. Li H, Bottani B, DeWees T, et al. Prospective study evaluating the use of IV contrast on IMRT treatment planning for lung cancer. Med Phys. 2014; 41(3): 031708.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy