Literature DB >> 12945966

Limitations of a convolution method for modeling geometric uncertainties in radiation therapy. I. The effect of shift invariance.

Tim Craig1, Jerry Battista, Jake Van Dyk.   

Abstract

Convolution methods have been used to model the effect of geometric uncertainties on dose delivery in radiation therapy. Convolution assumes shift invariance of the dose distribution. Internal inhomogeneities and surface curvature lead to violations of this assumption. The magnitude of the error resulting from violation of shift invariance is not well documented. This issue is addressed by comparing dose distributions calculated using the Convolution method with dose distributions obtained by Direct Simulation. A comparison of conventional Static dose distributions was also made with Direct Simulation. This analysis was performed for phantom geometries and several clinical tumor sites. A modification to the Convolution method to correct for some of the inherent errors is proposed and tested using example phantoms and patients. We refer to this modified method as the Corrected Convolution. The average maximum dose error in the calculated volume (averaged over different beam arrangements in the various phantom examples) was 21% with the Static dose calculation, 9% with Convolution, and reduced to 5% with the Corrected Convolution. The average maximum dose error in the calculated volume (averaged over four clinical examples) was 9% for the Static method, 13% for Convolution, and 3% for Corrected Convolution. While Convolution can provide a superior estimate of the dose delivered when geometric uncertainties are present, the violation of shift invariance can result in substantial errors near the surface of the patient. The proposed Corrected Convolution modification reduces errors near the surface to 3% or less.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12945966     DOI: 10.1118/1.1589492

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


  19 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Surface-constrained nonrigid registration for dose monitoring in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Guillaume Cazoulat; Antoine Simon; Aurelien Dumenil; Khemara Gnep; Renaud de Crevoisier; Oscar Acosta; Pascal Haigron
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 10.048

4.  Dosimetric comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy planning techniques for prostate cancer in the presence of intrafractional organ deformation.

Authors:  Maria Varnava; Iori Sumida; Michio Oda; Keita Kurosu; Fumiaki Isohashi; Yuji Seo; Keisuke Otani; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 2.724

5.  Quantifying the dosimetric impact of organ-at-risk delineation variability in head and neck radiation therapy in the context of patient setup uncertainty.

Authors:  Eric Aliotta; Hamidreza Nourzadeh; Jeffrey Siebers
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Incorporating system latency associated with real-time target tracking radiotherapy in the dose prediction step.

Authors:  Teboh Roland; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Chengyu Shi; Nikos Papanikolaou
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-04-19       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  A method of dose reconstruction for moving targets compatible with dynamic treatments.

Authors:  Per Rugaard Poulsen; Mai Lykkegaard Schmidt; Paul Keall; Esben Schjodt Worm; Walther Fledelius; Lone Hoffmann
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Quantifying the interplay effect in prostate IMRT delivery using a convolution-based method.

Authors:  Haisen S Li; Indrin J Chetty; Timothy D Solberg
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  An evaluation of planning techniques for stereotactic body radiation therapy in lung tumors.

Authors:  Jianzhou Wu; Huiling Li; Raj Shekhar; Mohan Suntharalingam; Warren D'Souza
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2008-03-24       Impact factor: 6.280

10.  Dose deformation-invariance in adaptive prostate radiation therapy: implication for treatment simulations.

Authors:  Manju Sharma; Elisabeth Weiss; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 6.280

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.