Literature DB >> 12175561

Margins for geometric uncertainty around organs at risk in radiotherapy.

Alan McKenzie1, Marcel van Herk, Ben Mijnheer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: ICRU Report 62 suggests drawing margins around organs at risk (ORs) to produce planning organ at risk volumes (PRVs) to account for geometric uncertainty in the radiotherapy treatment process. This paper proposes an algorithm for drawing such margins, and compares the recommended margin widths with examples from clinical practice and discusses the limitations of the approach.
METHOD: The use of the PRV defined in this way is that, despite the geometric uncertainties, the dose calculated within the PRV by the treatment planning system can be used to represent the dose in the OR with a certain confidence level. A suitable level is where, in the majority of cases (90%), the dose-volume histogram of the PRV will not under-represent the high-dose components in the OR. In order to provide guidelines on how to do this in clinical practice, this paper distinguishes types of OR in terms of the tolerance doses relative to the prescription dose and suggests appropriate margins for serial-structure and parallel-structure ORs.
RESULTS: In some instances of large and parallel ORs, the clinician may judge that the complication risk in omitting a margin is acceptable. Otherwise, for all types of OR, systematic, treatment preparation uncertainties may be accommodated by an OR-->PRV margin width of 1.3Sigma. Here, Sigma is the standard deviation of the combined systematic (treatment preparation) uncertainties. In the case of serial ORs or small, parallel ORs, the effects of blurring caused by daily treatment execution errors (set-up and organ motion) should be taken into account. Near a region of high dose, blurring tends to shift the isodoses away from the unblurred edge as shown on the treatment planning system by an amount that may be represented by 0.5sigma. This margin may be used either to increase or to decrease the margin already calculated for systematic uncertainties, depending upon the size of the tolerance dose relative to the detailed planned dose distribution. Where the detailed distribution is unknown before the OR is delineated, then the overall margin for serial or small parallel ORs should be 1.3Sigma+0.5sigma. Examples are given where the application of this algorithm leads to margin widths around ORs similar to those in use clinically.
CONCLUSIONS: Using PRVs is appropriate both for forward and inverse planning. Dose-volume histograms of PRVs for serial- and parallel-structure ORs require careful interpretation. Nevertheless, use of the proposed algorithms for drawing margins around both serial and parallel ORs can alert the dosimetrist/radiation oncologist to the possibility of high-dose complications in individual treatment plans, which might be missed if no such margins were drawn.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12175561     DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(02)00015-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  29 in total

1.  Influence of the type of imaging on the delineation process during the treatment planning.

Authors:  Weronika Jackowiak; Bartosz Bąk; Anna Kowalik; Adam Ryczkowski; Małgorzata Skórska; Małgorzata Paszek-Widzińska
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2015-06-18

2.  PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Steven J Frank; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; Ron X Zhu; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Set-up errors and planning target volume margins in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: a clinical study of image guidance with on-line cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Francesco Dionisi; Mauro Filippo Palazzi; Francesco Bracco; Maria Grazia Brambilla; Claudia Carbonini; Diego Dario Asnaghi; Angelo Filippo Monti; Alberto Torresin
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Set-up uncertainty during postmastectomy radiotherapy with Segmented Photon Beams Technique.

Authors:  Anna Semaniak; Paweł Kukołowicz
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2015-03-05

5.  Comparison of Safety Margin Generation Concepts in Image Guided Radiotherapy to Account for Daily Head and Neck Pose Variations.

Authors:  Markus Stoll; Eva Maria Stoiber; Sarah Grimm; Jürgen Debus; Rolf Bendl; Kristina Giske
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Assessment and quantification of patient set-up errors in nasopharyngeal cancer patients and their biological and dosimetric impact in terms of generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD), tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).

Authors:  A Boughalia; S Marcie; M Fellah; S Chami; F Mekki
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Dosimetric impact of intrafractional patient motion in pediatric brain tumor patients.

Authors:  Chris Beltran; John Trussell; Thomas E Merchant
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2009-02-07       Impact factor: 1.482

8.  Coverage-based treatment planning to accommodate delineation uncertainties in prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  Huijun Xu; J James Gordon; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Statistical simulations to estimate motion-inclusive dose-volume histograms for prediction of rectal morbidity following radiotherapy.

Authors:  Maria Thor; Aditya Apte; Joseph O Deasy; Ludvig Paul Muren
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2012-12-04       Impact factor: 4.089

10.  Dosimetric predictors of diarrhea during radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Giuseppe Sanguineti; Eugene J Endres; Maria Pia Sormani; Brent C Parker
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 3.621

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.