Body contour adaptation for weight-loss and bolus for head and neck radiotherapy on Ethos version 2.0 and HyperSight: Synthetic CT versus direct calculation

7Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: In radiotherapy, body contour inaccuracies may compromise the delineation of adjacent structures and affect calculated dose. Here, we evaluate the un-editable body contours auto-generated by Ethos versions 1.0 (v1) and 2.0 (v2) treatment planning softwares for two simulated cases: weight-loss and bolus application, particularly important for head and neck radiotherapy patients. Methods: A 3D-printed target structure was secured to the neck of an anthropomorphic phantom and sequentially covered with silicone boluses of uniform thickness, providing cases for bolus application (0.5 and 1 cm) and weight-loss (2.0, 1.5, 1.0, 0.5, and 0 cm). HyperSight CBCT images of the phantom were acquired to simulate the online adaptation process. Baseline body contours were manually produced and compared to those auto-generated in Ethos v1 (synthetic CTs) and Ethos v2 (synthetic CTs and direct calculation on HyperSight CBCTs). Additionally, the target volume D95% dose metric for weight-loss adapted plans generated by the Ethos v2 were analyzed as a function of surface layer thickness. Results: The Ethos v1 body contour did not adapt adequately for the weight-loss image set [mean absolute volume deviation from baseline (MAD) = 205 cm3]. The weight-loss synthetic CT and HyperSight CBCT volumes in Ethos v2 were comparable to manually generated contours (MAD = 34 and 46 cm3, respectively); however, the bolus Hypersight CBCT body contour intersected the outer edge of the phantom (MAD = 157 cm3). The D95% deviation from the planned dose decreased by up to 10% when using the Ethos v2 adapted plan for the weight-loss scenario. Conclusion: Contours in Ethos v1 rely on reference contours and deformable registration algorithms, whereas Ethos v2 does not. Hence, Ethos v2 is preferred for cases involving weight change. A tight-fitted air gap-free bolus is critical for achieving accurate body contours for Ethos v2 Hypersight CBCTs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yashayaeva, A., MacDonald, R. L., & Cherpak, A. (2025). Body contour adaptation for weight-loss and bolus for head and neck radiotherapy on Ethos version 2.0 and HyperSight: Synthetic CT versus direct calculation. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14587

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free