Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 6, 2025

Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
Published on: June 7, 2015
Head and neck cancer patient positioning using synthetic CT data in MRI-only radiation therapy
Emilia Palmér1, Fredrik Nordström1,2, Anna Karlsson1,2
1Department of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Purpose:
The accuracy and precision of patient positioning is crucial in radiotherapy; however, there are no publications available using synthetic computed tomography (sCT) that evaluate rotations in head and neck (H&N) patients positioning or the effect of translation and rotation combined. The aim of this work was to evaluate the differences between using sCT with the CT for 2D- and 3D-patient positioning in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only workflow.
Methods:
This study included 14 H&N cancer patients, with generated sCT data (MRI Planner v2.2) and the CT deformably registered to the MRI. Patient positioning was evaluated by comparing sCT against CT data: 3D cone beam CT (CBCT) was registered to the deformed CT (dCT) and sCT in six degrees of freedom (DoF) with a rigid auto-registration algorithm and bone threshold, and 2D deformed digital reconstructed radiographs (dDRR) and synthetic DRRs (sDRR) were manually registered to orthogonal projections in five DoF by six blinded observers. The difference in displacement in all DoF were calculated for dCT and sCT, as well as for dDRR and sDRR. The interobserver variation was evaluated by separate application of the paired dDRR and sDRR registration matrices to the original coordinates of the planning target volume (PTV) structures and calculation of the Euclidean distance between the corresponding points. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was calculated between dDRR/sDRR-registered PTVs.
Results:
The mean difference in patient positioning using CBCT was <0.7 mm and <0.3° and using orthogonal projections <0.4 mm and <0.2° in all directions. The maximum Euclidean distance was 5.1 mm, the corresponding mean (1SD) Euclidean distance and mean DSC were 3.5 ± 0.7 mm and 0.93, respectively.
Conclusions:
This study shows that the sCT-based patient positioning gives a comparable result with that based on CT images, allowing sCT to replace CT as reference for patient treatment positioning.
More Related Videos
08:34Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
07:57Positron Emission Tomography-based Dose Painting Radiation Therapy in a Glioblastoma Rat Model using the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform
Published on: March 24, 2022