{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02940081875697804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01042054335690361, 'mean_word_length': 4.8818380743982495, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Absorbed doses behind bones with MR image-based dose calculations for radiotherapy treatment planning.

PURPOSE
Magnetic resonance (MR) images are used increasingly in external radiotherapy target delineation because of their superior soft tissue contrast compared to computed tomography (CT) images. Nevertheless, radiotherapy treatment planning has traditionally been based on the use of CT images, due to the restrictive features of MR images such as lack of electron density information. This research aimed to measure absorbed radiation doses in material behind different bone parts, and to evaluate dose calculation errors in two pseudo-CT images; first, by assuming a single electron density value for the bones, and second, by converting the electron density values inside bones from T(1)∕T(2)∗-weighted MR image intensity values.


METHODS
A dedicated phantom was constructed using fresh deer bones and gelatine. The effect of different bone parts to the absorbed dose behind them was investigated with a single open field at 6 and 15 MV, and measuring clinically detectable dose deviations by an ionization chamber matrix. Dose calculation deviations in a conversion-based pseudo-CT image and in a bulk density pseudo-CT image, where the relative electron density to water for the bones was set as 1.3, were quantified by comparing the calculation results with those obtained in a standard CT image by superposition and Monte Carlo algorithms.


RESULTS
The calculations revealed that the applied bulk density pseudo-CT image causes deviations up to 2.7% (6 MV) and 2.0% (15 MV) to the dose behind the examined bones. The corresponding values in the conversion-based pseudo-CT image were 1.3% (6 MV) and 1.0% (15 MV). The examinations illustrated that the representation of the heterogeneous femoral bone (cortex denser compared to core) by using a bulk density for the whole bone causes dose deviations up to 2% both behind the bone edge and the middle part of the bone (diameter <2.5 cm), but in the opposite directions. The measured doses and the calculated ones in the standard CT image were within 0.4% (through gelatine only) and 0.9% (behind bones).


CONCLUSIONS
This study indicates that the decrease in absorbed dose is not dependent on the bone diameter with all types of bones. Thus, performing dose calculation in a pseudo-CT image by assuming a single electron density value for the bones can lead to a substantial misrepresentation of the dose distribution profile. This work showed that dose calculation accuracy can be improved by using a pseudo-CT image in which the electron density values have been converted from the MR image intensity values inside bones.