PURPOSE: To determine the extent of dosimetric differences between conventional three-dimensional (3D) dose calculations and four-dimensional (4D) dose calculations based on deformation of organ models. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four-dimensional dose calculations were retrospectively performed on computed tomography data sets for 15 patients with Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, using a model-based deformable registration algorithm on a research version of a commercial radiation treatment planning system. Target volume coverage and doses to critical structures calculated using the 4D methodology were compared with those calculated using conventional 3D methodology. RESULTS: For 11 of 15 patients, clinical target volume coverage was comparable in the 3D and 4D calculations, whereas for 7 of 15 patients, planning target volume coverage was comparable. For the other patients, the 4D calculation indicated a difference in target volume dose sufficiently great to warrant replanning. No correlations could be established between differences in 3D and 4D calculations and gross tumor volume size or extent of motion. Negligible differences were observed between 3D and 4D dose-volume relationships for normal anatomic structures. CONCLUSIONS: Use of 4D dose calculations, when possible, helps ensure that target volumes will not be underirradiated when respiratory motion may affect the dose distribution.
PURPOSE: To determine the extent of dosimetric differences between conventional three-dimensional (3D) dose calculations and four-dimensional (4D) dose calculations based on deformation of organ models. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four-dimensional dose calculations were retrospectively performed on computed tomography data sets for 15 patients with Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, using a model-based deformable registration algorithm on a research version of a commercial radiation treatment planning system. Target volume coverage and doses to critical structures calculated using the 4D methodology were compared with those calculated using conventional 3D methodology. RESULTS: For 11 of 15 patients, clinical target volume coverage was comparable in the 3D and 4D calculations, whereas for 7 of 15 patients, planning target volume coverage was comparable. For the other patients, the 4D calculation indicated a difference in target volume dose sufficiently great to warrant replanning. No correlations could be established between differences in 3D and 4D calculations and gross tumor volume size or extent of motion. Negligible differences were observed between 3D and 4D dose-volume relationships for normal anatomic structures. CONCLUSIONS: Use of 4D dose calculations, when possible, helps ensure that target volumes will not be underirradiated when respiratory motion may affect the dose distribution.
Authors: Carolyn J Niu; Warren D Foltz; Michael Velec; Joanne L Moseley; Adil Al-Mayah; Kristy K Brock Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael Velec; Joanne L Moseley; Cynthia L Eccles; Tim Craig; Michael B Sharpe; Laura A Dawson; Kristy K Brock Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Heng Li; Yupeng Li; Xiaodong Zhang; Xiaoqiang Li; Wei Liu; Michael T Gillin; X Ronald Zhu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Russell E Kincaid; Agung E Hertanto; Yu-Chi Hu; Abraham J Wu; Karyn A Goodman; Hai D Pham; Ellen D Yorke; Qinghui Zhang; Qing Chen; Gig S Mageras Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Heng Li; Peter Park; Wei Liu; Jason Matney; Zhongxing Liao; Peter Balter; Yupeng Li; Xiaodong Zhang; Xiaoqiang Li; X Ronald Zhu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.071