Impact of dual-layer spectral CT-derived stopping power ratio on single-energy CT-based carbon-ion treatment planning for thoracic cancer

Purpose To evaluate the impact of stopping-power ratio (SPR) predictions derived from dual-layer detector-based spectral CT (DLCT) on conventional single-energy CT (SECT)-based carbon-ion treatment planning for thoracic cancer. Methods Twenty patients with thoracic cancer who underwent non-contrast DLCT were retrospectively included. DLCT-based SPR images were generated from effective atomic number and relative electron density maps using the Bethe equation. SECT-based SPR was derived using a Hounsfield unit look-up table generated via stoichiometric calibration of a commercial electron density phantom. Using the same phantom, a phantom-based prediction assessment was performed by comparing SECT- and DLCT-based SPR predictions with theoretical SPR values for the inserts. For patient analysis, normal-tissue SPR values derived from SECT and DLCT were compared. Carbon-ion treatment plans were first generated based on SECT images and then recalculated using DLCT-derived SPR images. Range differences in the beam’s-eye view and dose–volume histogram parameters for the planning target volume and organs at risk were evaluated. Results In the phantom-based assessment, the root-mean-square error relative to the theoretical SPR was 5.57% for SECT and 2.83% for DLCT. In patient images, mean SPR differences between SECT and DLCT were 3.62% for the lungs, 1.93% for the esophagus, 0.04% for the heart, 0.93% for the spinal cord, and 1.53% for the ribs. Across the patient cohort, the mean recalculated range difference was 0.71 ± 0.89 mm, corresponding to a relative difference of 0.60 ± 0.67%. No statistically significant differences were observed in target dose metrics, whereas selected organ-at-risk metrics showed statistically significant differences between SECT-based plans and DLCT-based recalculations. Conclusion DLCT-derived SPR prediction showed better agreement with theoretical phantom SPR values in the phantom-based prediction assessment and produced tissue-dependent SPR differences in thoracic patient images compared with conventional SECT-based prediction. Recalculation on DLCT-derived SPR maps resulted in modest but systematic range differences and limited changes in selected dose metrics. These results may inform the implementation and future independent validation of patient-specific DLCT-based SPR workflows in carbon-ion treatment planning for thoracic cancer.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-09-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358184
Primary Topic
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Impact of dual-layer spectral CT-derived stopping power ratio on single-energy CT-based carbon-ion treatment planning for thoracic cancer

Hyeongmin Jin, Euntaek Yoon, Jin Mo Goo, Soon Ho Yoon et al.
PLoS ONE
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
article

Impact of dual-layer spectral CT-derived stopping power ratio on single-energy CT-based carbon-ion treatment planning for thoracic cancer

Hyeongmin Jin, Euntaek Yoon, Jin Mo Goo, Soon Ho Yoon, Hyung Jin Choun, Sungjin Yoon, Jong Min Park, Sung Hyun Lee, Tae Ho Jang
article en

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the impact of stopping-power ratio (SPR) predictions derived from dual-layer detector-based spectral CT (DLCT) on conventional single-energy CT (SECT)-based carbon-ion treatment planning for thoracic cancer. Methods Twenty patients with thoracic cancer who underwent non-contrast DLCT were retrospectively included. DLCT-based SPR images were generated from effective atomic number and relative electron density maps using the Bethe equation. SECT-based SPR was derived using a Hounsfield unit look-up table generated via stoichiometric calibration of a commercial electron density phantom. Using the same phantom, a phantom-based prediction assessment was performed by comparing SECT- and DLCT-based SPR predictions with theoretical SPR values for the inserts. For patient analysis, normal-tissue SPR values derived from SECT and DLCT were compared. Carbon-ion treatment plans were first generated based on SECT images and then recalculated using DLCT-derived SPR images. Range differences in the beam’s-eye view and dose–volume histogram parameters for the planning target volume and organs at risk were evaluated. Results In the phantom-based assessment, the root-mean-square error relative to the theoretical SPR was 5.57% for SECT and 2.83% for DLCT. In patient images, mean SPR differences between SECT and DLCT were 3.62% for the lungs, 1.93% for the esophagus, 0.04% for the heart, 0.93% for the spinal cord, and 1.53% for the ribs. Across the patient cohort, the mean recalculated range difference was 0.71 ± 0.89 mm, corresponding to a relative difference of 0.60 ± 0.67%. No statistically significant differences were observed in target dose metrics, whereas selected organ-at-risk metrics showed statistically significant differences between SECT-based plans and DLCT-based recalculations. Conclusion DLCT-derived SPR prediction showed better agreement with theoretical phantom SPR values in the phantom-based prediction assessment and produced tissue-dependent SPR differences in thoracic patient images compared with conventional SECT-based prediction. Recalculation on DLCT-derived SPR maps resulted in modest but systematic range differences and limited changes in selected dose metrics. These results may inform the implementation and future independent validation of patient-specific DLCT-based SPR workflows in carbon-ion treatment planning for thoracic cancer.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(9)
Seoul National University (KR), New Generation University College (ET), Seoul National University Hospital (KR), National Jewish Health (US), National University College (PR), Biomedical Research Institute (US), University of Colorado Denver (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.