Literature DB >> 14630286

Biologic and physical fractionation effects of random geometric errors.

Marcel van Herk1, Marnix Witte, Joris van der Geer, Christoph Schneider, Joos V Lebesque.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We are developing a system to model the effect of random and systematic geometric errors on radiotherapy delivery. The purpose of this study was to investigate biologic and physical fractionation effects of random geometric errors and respiration motion and compare the resulting dose distributions with Gaussian blurring of the planned dose.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hypothetical dose distribution with Gaussian penumbra was used. Random errors drawn from a normal distribution, optionally combined with simulated respiration motion (in the cranio-caudal direction), were used to displace the dose distribution for N simulated fractions. To simulate biologic effects of fractionation, the physical dose was converted to a biologically effective dose using the linear-quadratic model (including repopulation), then summed and converted back to physical dose for comparison. Differences between dose distributions were quantified in terms of the distance between selected isodose levels.
RESULTS: A limited number of fractions led to an uncertainty in the position of isodose levels in the total dose with as standard deviation (SD) the SD of the random error divided by radical N. Due to biologic fractionation effects, the total dose distribution became slightly wider: 0.4 mm for alpha/beta = 1 Gy and a random error SD of 3 mm. The widening increased with random error and reduced with increasing alpha/beta but does not depend on the number of fractions or on repopulation. Respiration motion caused an asymmetric deviation in the shape of the total dose distribution, but no additional dose widening was seen from the biologic effect of fractionation. With a random error SD of 3 mm and respiration amplitude, A, of 1 cm or less (SD < 0.36 cm), the asymmetry was negligible. For larger respiration amplitudes (combined with the same random error), the shift of the 95% isodose level was about 0.25*A caudally, and 0.45*A cranially.
CONCLUSIONS: Gaussian blurring with a combined SD of organ motion, setup error, and respiration motion is a valid approximation for the effect of purely random errors in fractionated radiotherapy. For respiration motion in excess of 1 cm in amplitude, isodose lines shift in a distinctly asymmetric fashion and asymmetric margins need to be used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14630286     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.08.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  28 in total

1.  A method to evaluate dose errors introduced by dose mapping processes for mass conserving deformations.

Authors:  C Yan; G Hugo; F J Salguero; N Saleh-Sayah; E Weiss; W C Sleeman; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Consideration of the likely benefit from implementation of prostate image-guided radiotherapy using current margin sizes: a radiobiological analysis.

Authors:  G S J Tudor; Y L Rimmer; T B Nguyen; M A Cowen; S J Thomas
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Effect of daily setup errors on individual dose distribution in conventional radiotherapy: an initial study.

Authors:  Akihiro Takemura; Saori Shoji; Sinichi Ueda; Yuichi Kurata; Tomoyasu Kumano; Shigeyuki Takamatsu; Masayuki Suzuki
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2009-05-01

4.  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

5.  Simplified strategies to determine the mean respiratory position for liver radiation therapy planning.

Authors:  Michael Velec; Joanne L Moseley; Kristy K Brock
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-08-08

6.  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

7.  Proton radiotherapy: the biological effect of treating alternating subsets of fields for different treatment fractions.

Authors:  Martijn Engelsman; Thomas F DeLaney; Theodore S Hong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Evaluating deviations in prostatectomy patients treated with IMRT.

Authors:  Ana Cravo Sá; Ana Peres; Mónica Pereira; Carina Marques Coelho; Fátima Monsanto; Ana Macedo; Adrian Lamas
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2015-12-29

9.  Biological impact of geometric uncertainties: what margin is needed for intra-hepatic tumors?

Authors:  Hsiang-Chi Kuo; Wen-Shan Liu; Andrew Wu; Dennis Mah; Keh-Shih Chuang; Linda Hong; Ravi Yaparpalvi; Chandan Guha; Shalom Kalnicki
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-06-03       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Method comparison of automated matching software-assisted cone-beam CT and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray positional verification image-guided radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  Clifton D Fuller; Todd J Scarbrough; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Coen R N Rasch; Mehee Choi; Joe Y Ting; Samuel J Wang; Niko Papanikolaou; David I Rosenthal
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-11-24       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.