Vol 27, No 1 (2022)
Research paper
Published online: 2022-02-02

open access

Page views 5119
Article views/downloads 359
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

A study to determine the impact of IMPT optimization techniques on prostate synthetic CT image sets dose comparison against CT image sets

Gipson Joe Anto1, Sureka Sekaran1, Bojarajan Perumal1, Natarajan Ramar2, Vaitheeswaran R1, Karthikeyan SK1
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2022;27(1):161-169.


Background: The objective of this study is to determine the impact of intensity modulated proton therapty (IMPT) optimization techniques on the proton dose comparison of commercially available magnetic resonance for calculating attenuation (MRCAT) images, a synthetic computed tomography CT (sCT) based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan against the CT images and find out the optimization technique which creates plans with the least dose differences against the regular CT image sets.

Material and methods: Regular CT data sets and sCT image sets were obtained for 10 prostate patients for the study. Six plans were created using six distinct IMPT optimization techniques including multi-field optimization (MFO), single field uniform dose (SFUD) optimization, and robust optimization (RO) in CT image sets. These plans were copied to MRCAT, sCT datasets and doses were computed. Doses from CT and MRCAT data sets were compared for each patient using 2D dose distribution display, dose volume histograms (DVH), homogeneity index (HI), conformation number (CN) and 3D gamma analysis. A two tailed t-test was conducted on HI and CN with 5% significance level with a null hypothesis for CT and sCT image sets.

Results: Analysis of ten CT and sCT image sets with different IMPT optimization techniques shows that a few of the techniques show significant differences between plans for a few evaluation parameters. Isodose lines, DVH, HI, CN and t-test analysis shows that robust optimizations with 2% range error incorporated results in plans, when re-computed in sCT image sets results in the least dose differences against CT plans compared to other optimization techniques. The second best optimization technique with the least dose differences was robust optimization with 5% range error.

Conclusion: This study affirmatively demonstrates the impact of IMPT optimization techniques on synthetic CT image sets dose comparison against CT images and determines the robust optimization with 2% range error as the optimization technique which gives the least dose difference when compared to CT plans.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Brock KK, Mutic S, McNutt TR, et al. Use of image registration and fusion algorithms and techniques in radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 132. Med Phys. 2017; 44(7): e43–e76.
  2. Beavis AW, Gibbs P, Dealey RA, et al. Radiotherapy treatment planning of brain tumours using MRI alone. Br J Radiol. 1998; 71(845): 544–548.
  3. Dowling JA, Sun J, Pichler P, et al. Automatic Substitute Computed Tomography Generation and Contouring for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-Alone External Beam Radiation Therapy From Standard MRI Sequences. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 93(5): 1144–1153.
  4. Chin AL, Lin A, Anamalayil S, et al. Feasibility and limitations of bulk density assignment in MRI for head and neck IMRT treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15(5): 4851.
  5. Lee YK, Bollet M, Charles-Edwards G, et al. Radiotherapy treatment planning of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging alone. Radiother Oncol. 2003; 66(2): 203–216.
  6. Hofmann M, Bezrukov I, Mantlik F, et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MRI: quantitative evaluation of segmentation- and atlas-based methods. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52(9): 1392–1399.
  7. Gudur MS, Hara W, Le QT, et al. A unifying probabilistic Bayesian approach to derive electron density from MRI for radiation therapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59(21): 6595–6606.
  8. Kirk ML, Tang S, Zhai H, et al. Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015; 5(2): 99–105.
  9. Maspero M, van den Berg CAT, Landry G, et al. Feasibility of MR-only proton dose calculations for prostate cancer radiotherapy using a commercial pseudo-CT generation method. Phys Med Biol. 2017; 62(24): 9159–9176.
  10. Liu Y, Lei Y, Wang Y, et al. MRI-based treatment planning for proton radiotherapy: dosimetric validation of a deep learning-based liver synthetic CT generation method. Phys Med Biol. 2019; 64(14): 145015.
  11. Uh J, Merchant TE, Li Y, et al. MRI-based treatment planning with pseudo CT generated through atlas registration. Med Phys. 2014; 41(5): 051711.
  12. Chen L, Price R, Wang L, et al. MRI-based treatment planning for radiotherapy: Dosimetric verification for prostate IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 60(2): 636–647.
  13. Eilertsen K, Vestad LN, Geier O, et al. A simulation of MRI based dose calculations on the basis of radiotherapy planning CT images. Acta Oncol. 2008; 47(7): 1294–1302.
  14. Prabhakar R, Julka PK, Ganesh T, et al. Feasibility of using MRI alone for 3D radiation treatment planning in brain tumors. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007; 37(6): 405–411.
  15. Depauw N, Keyriläinen J, Suilamo S, et al. MRI-based IMPT planning for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2020; 144: 79–85.
  16. Unkelbach J, Bortfeld T, Martin BC, et al. Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning. Med Phys. 2009; 36(1): 149–163.
  17. Quan EM, Liu W, Wu R, et al. Preliminary evaluation of multifield and single-field optimization for the treatment planning of spot-scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer. Med Phys. 2013; 40(8): 081709.
  18. Unkelbach J, Paganetti H. Robust Proton Treatment Planning: Physical and Biological Optimization. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2018; 28(2): 88–96.
  19. Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, et al. PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization. Med Phys. 2013; 40(2): 021709.
  20. Pugh TJ, Amos RA, John Baptiste S, et al. Multifield optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy (MFO-IMPT) for prostate cancer: Robustness analysis through simulation of rotational and translational alignment errors. Med Dosim. 2013; 38(3): 344–350.
  21. Köhler M., Vaara T., Van Grootel M. et al. MR-only simulation for radiotherapy planning, White paper: Philips MRCAT for prostate dose calculations using only MRI data; 2015. http://incenter.medical.philips.com/doclib/enc/fetch/2000/4504/577242/577251/587787/White_Paper_MR-only_sim_LR.pdf%3Fnodeid%3D11147198%26vernum%3D-2.
  22. Gintz D, Latifi K, Caudell J, et al. Initial evaluation of automated treatment planning software. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016; 17(3): 331–346.

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy