Literature DB >> 12945967

Limitations of a convolution method for modeling geometric uncertainties in radiation therapy. II. The effect of a finite number of fractions.

Tim Craig1, Jerry Battista, Jake Van Dyk.   

Abstract

Convolution methods can be used to model the effect of geometric uncertainties on the planned dose distribution in radiation therapy. This requires several assumptions, including that the patient is treated with an infinite number of fractions, each delivering an infinitesimally small dose. The error resulting from this assumption has not been thoroughly quantified. This is investigated by comparing dose distributions calculated using the Convolution method with the result of Stochastic simulations of the treatment. Additionally, the dose calculated using the conventional Static method, a Corrected Convolution method, and a Direct Simulation are compared to the Stochastic result. This analysis is performed for single beam, parallel opposed pair, and four-field box techniques in a cubic water phantom. Treatment plans for a simple and a complex idealized anatomy were similarly analyzed. The average maximum error using the Static method for a 30 fraction simulation for the three techniques in phantoms was 23%, 11% for Convolution, 10% for Corrected Convolution, and 10% for Direct Simulation. In the two anatomical examples, the mean error in tumor control probability for Static and Convolution methods was 7% and 2%, respectively, of the result with no uncertainty, and 35% and 9%, respectively, for normal tissue complication probabilities. Convolution provides superior estimates of the delivered dose when compared to the Static method. In the range of fractions used clinically, considerable dosimetric variations will exist solely because of the random nature of the geometric uncertainties. However, the effect of finite fractionation appears to have a greater impact on the dose distribution than plan evaluation parameters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12945967     DOI: 10.1118/1.1589493

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


  8 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.  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

3.  Comparisons of treatment optimization directly incorporating systematic patient setup uncertainty with a margin-based approach.

Authors:  Joseph A Moore; J James Gordon; Mitchell Anscher; Joaquin Silva; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  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

5.  Comparisons of treatment optimization directly incorporating random patient setup uncertainty with a margin-based approach.

Authors:  Joseph A Moore; John J Gordon; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Margin selection to compensate for loss of target dose coverage due to target motion during external-beam radiation therapy of the lung.

Authors:  W Kyle Foster; Ernest Osei; Rob Barnett
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Influence of increased target dose inhomogeneity on margins for breathing motion compensation in conformal stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Authors:  Anne Richter; Kurt Baier; Juergen Meyer; Juergen Wilbert; Thomas Krieger; Michael Flentje; Matthias Guckenberger
Journal:  BMC Med Phys       Date:  2008-12-03

8.  PTV margin for dose escalated radiation therapy of prostate cancer with daily on-line realignment using internal fiducial markers: Monte Carlo approach and dose population histogram (DPH) analysis.

Authors:  Miao Zhang; Vitali Moiseenko; Mitchell Liu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2006-05-25       Impact factor: 2.102

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.