Literature DB >> 16752574

Dosimetric and radiobiological impact of dose fractionation on respiratory motion induced IMRT delivery errors: a volumetric dose measurement study.

Jun Duan1, Sui Shen, John B Fiveash, Richard A Popple, Ivan A Brezovich.   

Abstract

Respiratory motion can introduce substantial dose errors during IMRT delivery. These errors are difficult to predict because of the nonsynchronous interplay between radiation beams and tissues. The present study investigates the impact of dose fractionation on respiratory motion induced dosimetric errors during IMRT delivery and their radiobiological implications by using measured 3D dose. We focused on IMRT delivery with dynamic multileaf collimation (DMLC-IMRT). IMRT plans using several beam arrangements were optimized for and delivered to a polystyrene phantom containing a simulated target and critical organs. The phantom was set in linear sinusoidal motion at a frequency of 15 cycles/min (0.25 Hz). The amplitude of the motion was +/- 0.75 cm in the longitudinal direction and +/- 0.25 cm in the lateral direction. Absolute doses were measured with a 0.125 cc ionization chamber while dose distributions were measured with transverse films spaced 6 mm apart. Measurements were performed for varying number of fractions with motion, with respiratory-gated motion, and without motion. A tumor control probability (TCP) model for an inhomogeneously irradiated tumor was used to calculate and compare TCPs for the measurements and the treatment plans. Equivalent uniform doses (EUD) were also computed. For individual fields, point measurements using an ionization chamber showed substantial dose deviations (-11.7% to 47.8%) for the moving phantom as compared to the stationary phantom. However, much smaller deviations (-1.7% to 3.5%) were observed for the composite dose of all fields. The dose distributions and DVHs of stationary and gated deliveries were in good agreement with those of treatment plans, while those of the nongated moving phantom showed substantial differences. Compared to the stationary phantom, the largest differences observed for the minimum and maximum target doses were -18.8% and +19.7%, respectively. Due to their random nature, these dose errors tended to average out over fractionated treatments. The results of five-fraction measurements showed significantly improved agreement between the moving and stationary phantom. The changes in TCP were less than 4.3% for a single fraction, and less than 2.3% for two or more fractions. Variation of average EUD per fraction was small (< 3.1 cGy for a fraction size of 200 cGy), even when the DVHs were noticeably different from that of the stationary tumor. In conclusion, IMRT treatment of sites affected by respiratory motion can introduce significant dose errors in individual field doses; however, these errors tend to cancel out between fields and average out over dose fractionation. 3D dose distributions, DVHs, TCPs, and EUDs for stationary and moving cases showed good agreement after two or more fractions, suggesting that tumors affected by respiration motion may be treated using IMRT without significant dosimetric and biological consequences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16752574     DOI: 10.1118/1.2192908

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


  18 in total

1.  4D radiobiological modelling of the interplay effect in conventionally and hypofractionated lung tumour IMRT.

Authors:  J Selvaraj; J Uzan; C Baker; A Nahum
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Technical advances in external radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Shin-Hyung Park; Jae-Chul Kim; Min Kyu Kang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Potential underestimation of the internal target volume (ITV) from free-breathing CBCT.

Authors:  Irina Vergalasova; Jacqueline Maurer; Fang-Fang Yin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Imaging and dosimetric errors in 4D PET/CT-guided radiotherapy from patient-specific respiratory patterns: a dynamic motion phantom end-to-end study.

Authors:  S R Bowen; M J Nyflot; C Herrmann; C M Groh; J Meyer; S D Wollenweber; C W Stearns; P E Kinahan; G A Sandison
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Clinical Application of a Hybrid RapidArc Radiotherapy Technique for Locally Advanced Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Scott R Silva; Murat Surucu; Jennifer Steber; Matthew M Harkenrider; Mehee Choi
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-09-28

6.  Multimodality Treatment With Helical Tomotherapy Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy, Capecitabine, and Photodynamic Therapy is Feasible and Well Tolerated in Patients With Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Joseph M Baisden; Michel Kahaleh; Geoffrey R Weiss; Hilary Sanfey; Christopher A Moskaluk; Paul Yeaton; Eduard E de Lange; Tyvin A Rich
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2008-09

7.  Analysis of changes in dose distribution due to respiration during IMRT.

Authors:  Jung Suk Shin; Eunhyuk Shin; Youngyih Han; Sang-Gyu Ju; Jin Sung Kim; Sung Hwan Ahn; Tae Gyu Kim; Bae Kwon Jeong; Hee-Chul Park; Young-Chan Ahn; Doo Ho Choi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol J       Date:  2011-09-30

8.  Treatment outcome and toxicity of intensity-modulated (chemo) radiotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Stephanie L A Govaert; Esther G C Troost; Olga C J Schuurbiers; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Ariën Termeer; Paul N Span; Johan Bussink
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  4D treatment planning for scanned ion beams.

Authors:  Christoph Bert; Eike Rietzel
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2007-07-03       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  A margin-based analysis of the dosimetric impact of motion on step-and-shoot IMRT lung plans.

Authors:  Benjamin J Waghorn; Amish P Shah; Justin M Rineer; Katja M Langen; Sanford L Meeks
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.