Literature DB >> 12408305

The effect of set-up uncertainties, contour changes, and tissue inhomogeneities on target dose-volume histograms.

B C John Cho1, Marcel van Herk, Ben J Mijnheer, Harry Bartelink.   

Abstract

Understanding set-up uncertainty effects on dose distributions is an important clinical problem but difficult to model accurately due to their dependence on tissue inhomogeneities and changes in the surface contour (i.e., variant effects). The aims are: (1) to evaluate and quantify the invariant and variant effects of set-up uncertainties, contour changes and tissue inhomogeneities on target dose-volume histograms (DVHs); (2) to propose a method to interpolate (variant) DVHs. We present a lung cancer patient to estimate the significance of set-up uncertainties, contour changes and tissue inhomogeneities in target DVHs. Differential DVHs are calculated for 15 displacement errors (with respect to the isocenter) using (1) an invariant shift of the dose distribution at the isocenter, (2) a full variant calculation, and (3) a B-spline interpolation applied to sparsely sampled variant DVHs. The collapsed cone algorithm was used for all dose calculations. Dosimetric differences are quantified with the root mean square (RMS) deviation and the equivalent uniform dose (EUD). To determine set-up uncertainty effects, weighted mean EUDs, assuming normally distributed displacement errors, are used. The maximum absolute difference and RMS deviation in the integral DVHs' relative dose between (1) the invariant and calculated curves are 65.2% and 5.8% and (2) the interpolated and calculated curves are 16.9% and 2.5%. Similarly, the maximum absolute difference and RMS deviation in mean EUD as a function of the set-up uncertainty's standard deviation between (1) the invariant and calculated curves are 0.02 and 0.01 Gy; and (2) the interpolated and calculated curves are 0.01 and 0.006 Gy. Since a "worst-case" example is selected, we conclude that, in the majority of clinical cases, the variant effects of contour changes, tissue inhomogeneities and set-up uncertainties on EUD are negligible. Interpolation is a valid, efficient method to approximate DVHs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12408305     DOI: 10.1118/1.1508800

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


  9 in total

1.  Localization accuracy of the clinical target volume during image-guided radiotherapy of lung cancer.

Authors:  Geoffrey D Hugo; Elisabeth Weiss; Ahmed Badawi; Matthew Orton
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Evaluation of dosimetric margins in prostate IMRT treatment plans.

Authors:  J J Gordon; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Sensitivity of postplanning target and OAR coverage estimates to dosimetric margin distribution sampling parameters.

Authors:  Huijun Xu; J James Gordon; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A beam-specific planning target volume (PTV) design for proton therapy to account for setup and range uncertainties.

Authors:  Peter C Park; X Ronald Zhu; Andrew K Lee; Narayan Sahoo; Adam D Melancon; Lifei Zhang; Lei Dong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  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

6.  A novel dose-based positioning method for CT image-guided proton therapy.

Authors:  Joey P Cheung; Peter C Park; Laurence E Court; X Ronald Zhu; Rajat J Kudchadker; Steven J Frank; Lei Dong
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Fast range-corrected proton dose approximation method using prior dose distribution.

Authors:  Peter C Park; Joey Cheung; X Ronald Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Laurence Court; Lei Dong
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Analytical modeling of depth-dose degradation in heterogeneous lung tissue for intensity-modulated proton therapy planning.

Authors:  Johanna Winter; Malte Ellerbrock; Oliver Jäkel; Steffen Greilich; Mark Bangert
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-05-26

9.  Improvement of therapeutic index for brain tumors with daily image guidance.

Authors:  Lisa Be Shields; James M Coons; Catherine Dedich; Maria Ragains; Kristi Scalf; Todd W Vitaz; Aaron C Spalding
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-12-02       Impact factor: 3.481

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.