Literature DB >> 17278506

Evaluation of clinical margins via simulation of patient setup errors in prostate IMRT treatment plans.

J J Gordon1, A J Crimaldi, M Hagan, J Moore, J V Siebers.   

Abstract

This work evaluates: (i) the size of random and systematic setup errors that can be absorbed by 5 mm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins in prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT); (ii) agreement between simulation results and published margin recipes; and (iii) whether shifting contours with respect to a static dose distribution accurately predicts dose coverage due to setup errors. In 27 IMRT treatment plans created with 5 mm CTV-to-PTV margins, random setup errors with standard deviations (SDs) of 1.5, 3, 5 and 10 mm were simulated by fluence convolution. Systematic errors with identical SDs were simulated using two methods: (a) shifting the isocenter and recomputing dose (isocenter shift), and (b) shifting patient contours with respect to the static dose distribution (contour shift). Maximum tolerated setup errors were evaluated such that 90% of plans had target coverage equal to the planned PTV coverage. For coverage criteria consistent with published margin formulas, plans with 5 mm margins were found to absorb combined random and systematic SDs = 3 mm. Published recipes require margins of 8-10 mm for 3 mm SDs. For the prostate IMRT cases presented here a 5 mm margin would suffice, indicating that published recipes may be pessimistic. We found significant errors in individual plan doses given by the contour shift method. However, dose population plots (DPPs) given by the contour shift method agreed with the isocenter shift method for all structures except the nodal CTV and small bowel. For the nodal CTV, contour shift DPP differences were due to the structure moving outside the patient. Small bowel DPP errors were an artifact of large relative differences at low doses. Estimating individual plan doses by shifting contours with respect to a static dose distribution is not recommended. However, approximating DPPs is acceptable, provided care is taken with structures such as the nodal CTV which lie close to the surface.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17278506     DOI: 10.1118/1.2400842

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


  10 in total

1.  Coverage-based treatment planning: optimizing the IMRT PTV to meet a CTV coverage criterion.

Authors:  J J Gordon; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.071

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.  The effect of statistical noise on IMRT plan quality and convergence for MC-based and MC-correction-based optimized treatment plans.

Authors:  Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  J Phys Conf Ser       Date:  2008-04-04

5.  Patient specific respiratory motion modeling using a 3D patient's external surface.

Authors:  Hadi Fayad; Tinsu Pan; Olivier Pradier; Dimitris Visvikis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  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

7.  Coverage-based treatment planning to accommodate delineation uncertainties in prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  Huijun Xu; J James Gordon; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Schedule for CT image guidance in treating prostate cancer with helical tomotherapy.

Authors:  G Beldjoudi; S Yartsev; G Bauman; J Battista; J Van Dyk
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  A deliverable four-dimensional intensity-modulated radiation therapy-planning method for dynamic multileaf collimator tumor tracking delivery.

Authors:  Yelin Suh; Elisabeth Weiss; Hualiang Zhong; Mirek Fatyga; Jeffrey V Siebers; Paul J Keall
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  A study of nonuniform CTV to PTV margin expansion incorporating both rotational and translational uncertainties.

Authors:  Junjie Miao; Yingjie Xu; Yuan Tian; Zhiqiang Liu; Jianrong Dai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.