Literature DB >> 10902551

The impact of fluctuations in intensity patterns on the number of monitor units and the quality and accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy.

R Mohan1, M Arnfield, S Tong, Q Wu, J Siebers.   

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to examine the potential impact of the frequency and amplitude of fluctuations ("complexity") in intensity distributions on intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dose distributions. The intensity-modulated beams are efficiently delivered using a multileaf collimator (MLC). Radiation may be delivered through a continuous (dynamic mode) or discrete (step-and-shoot) sequence of windows formed by the leaves. Algorithms and software that convert optimized intensity distributions into leaf trajectories apply approximate empirical corrections to account for the various effects associated with MLC characteristics, such as the rounded leaf tips, tongue-and-groove leaf design, leaf transmission, leaf scatter, and collimator scatter upstream from the MLC. Typically, the difference between inter- and intraleaf transmissions is ignored. In this paper, using a schematic example of IMRT for head and neck carcinomas, we demonstrate that complex anatomy and severe optimization constraints produce complex intensity patterns. Using idealized intensity patterns we also demonstrate that, for complex intensity patterns, the average window width tends to be smaller and, for the same dose received by the tumor, the number of MUs is larger. We found that as the complexity increases, so does the contribution of radiation transmitted through and scattered from the leaves ("indirect radiation") to the total delivered dose. As a consequence, the lowest deliverable intensity in complex intensity patterns may be significantly greater than that required to provide adequate protection for some normal tissues. Furthermore, since corrections for leaf transmission and scatter effects are approximate and the difference between inter- and intraleaf transmission is ignored, the accuracy of the delivered dose may be affected. Using the results of a simple experiment and a typical intensity-modulated beam for a head and neck case as examples, we show the effect of window width and complexity on the accuracy and deliverability of intensity patterns. Some possible strategies for improving the accuracy and for relaxing the lower limit on deliverable intensity are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10902551     DOI: 10.1118/1.599000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  23 in total

1.  Analytic IMRT dose calculations utilizing Monte Carlo to predict MLC fluence modulation.

Authors:  I B Mihaylov; F A Lerma; Y Wu; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Adaptive diffusion smoothing: a diffusion-based method to reduce IMRT field complexity.

Authors:  Martha M Matuszak; Edward W Larsen; Kyung-Wook Jee; Daniel L McShan; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  The effect of MLC speed and acceleration on the plan delivery accuracy of VMAT.

Authors:  J M Park; H-G Wu; J H Kim; J N K Carlson; K Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: a review of current literature and applications.

Authors:  Sophie Chiavassa; Igor Bessieres; Magali Edouard; Michel Mathot; Alexandra Moignier
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Treatment plan complexity does not predict IROC Houston anthropomorphic head and neck phantom performance.

Authors:  Mallory C Glenn; Victor Hernandez; Jordi Saez; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Shouhao Zhou; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 6.  Influence of segment width on plan quality for volumetric modulated arc based stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Authors:  Karthikeyan Nithiyanantham; Ganesh Kadirampatti Mani; Vikraman Subramani; Karrthick Karukkupalayam Palaniappan; Mohanraj Uthiran; Sennniandavar Vellengiri; Sambasivaselli Raju; Sanjay S Supe; Tejinder Kataria
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2014-04-16

7.  Treatment planning evaluation of sliding window and multiple static segments technique in intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Khalid Iqbal; Muhammad Isa; Saeed Ahmad Buzdar; Kent Aallen Gifford; Muhammad Afzal
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2012-12-21

8.  Effect of fluence smoothing on the quality of intensity-modulated radiation treatment plans.

Authors:  Puzhakkal Niyas; Kallikuzhiyil Kochunny Abdullah; Manthala Padannayil Noufal; Thekkedath Sankaran Nair
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2016-03-07

9.  Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Nesrin Dogan; Ivaylo Mihaylov; Yan Wu; Paul J Keall; Jeffrey V Siebers; Michael P Hagan
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx.

Authors:  K S Jothybasu; Amit Bahl; V Subramani; G K Rath; D N Sharma; P K Julka
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2009-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.