Demonstrates improved synthetic CT generation in patients, suggesting enhanced treatment planning reliability.
PURPOSE: Stochastic bowel and rectal gas complicates MRI/CT deformable image registration (DIR) for synthetic CT (sCT) generation, requiring manual corrections. We propose a DIR-free, two-stage deep learning framework to improve intraluminal gas definition in sCT, streamlining MRI-only simulation and enhancing dosimetric reliability. Methods: We developed a two-stage GAN framework for sCT generation. First, a CycleGAN or pix2pix model converted MRIs into segmented map images (SMI); second, a pix2pix conditional GAN generated the final sCT. Ground-truth gas cavities were defined using CNN-based gastrointestinal autosegmentation, manual verification, and a 20% intensity threshold. Trained on a 60-patient dataset, the framework was compared to a single-stage MRI-to-sCT model via Dice-Sørensen coefficient and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Dosimetric accuracy was assessed by recalculating prostate VMAT plans (36.25 Gy/5 fractions) on synthetic CTs. Results: The gas cavity Dice-Sørensen coefficient for the two-stage method and the single-stage method were 0.63 ± 0.11 and 0.04 ± 0.03 for pix2pix, while for CycleGAN, they were 0.67 ± 0.07 and 0.57 ± 0.11, respectively. The global MAE for the standard single-stage method and the two-stage method for pix2pix were 86±20 HU and 94±20 HU, while for CycleGAN, they were 105±21 HU and 103±22 HU, respectively. Dosimetric analysis demonstrated excellent agreement for the planning target volume (PTV D95%), with mean differences of 0.04 ± 0.08 cGy and -0.89 ± 1.98 cGy for the one-stage and two-stage models, respectively. Both models exhibited negligible deviations across all assessed organ-at-risk (OAR) volumetric metrics, including D0.1cc, D1cc, and D15cc. Conclusions: The two-stage framework significantly enhances sCT intraluminal gas accuracy, improving cavity definition nearly threefold over single-stage models while maintaining tissue fidelity. This overcomes a major MRI-only simulation bottleneck. Future studies will prospectively evaluate its clinical impact on online adaptive radiotherapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luna et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: