PURPOSE: To develop a method that reconstructs, independently of previous (planning) information, the dose delivered to patients by combining in-room imaging with transit dose measurements during treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A megavoltage cone-beam CT scan of the patient anatomy was acquired with the patient in treatment position. During treatment, delivered fields were measured behind the patient with an electronic portal imaging device. The dose information in these images was back-projected through the cone-beam CT scan and used for Monte Carlo simulation of the dose distribution inside the cone-beam CT scan. Validation was performed using various phantoms for conformal and IMRT plans. Clinical applicability is shown for a head-and-neck cancer patient treated with IMRT. RESULTS: For single IMRT beams and a seven-field IMRT step-and-shoot plan, the dose distribution was reconstructed within 3%/3mm compared with the measured or planned dose. A three-dimensional conformal plan, verified using eight point-dose measurements, resulted in a difference of 1.3 +/- 3.3% (1 SD) compared with the reconstructed dose. For the patient case, planned and reconstructed dose distribution was within 3%/3mm for about 95% of the points within the 20% isodose line. Reconstructed mean dose values, obtained from dose-volume histograms, were within 3% of prescribed values for target volumes and normal tissues. CONCLUSIONS: We present a new method that verifies the dose delivered to a patient by combining in-room imaging with the transit dose measured during treatment. This verification procedure opens possibilities for offline adaptive radiotherapy and dose-guided radiotherapy strategies taking into account the dose distribution delivered during treatment sessions.
PURPOSE: To develop a method that reconstructs, independently of previous (planning) information, the dose delivered to patients by combining in-room imaging with transit dose measurements during treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A megavoltage cone-beam CT scan of the patient anatomy was acquired with the patient in treatment position. During treatment, delivered fields were measured behind the patient with an electronic portal imaging device. The dose information in these images was back-projected through the cone-beam CT scan and used for Monte Carlo simulation of the dose distribution inside the cone-beam CT scan. Validation was performed using various phantoms for conformal and IMRT plans. Clinical applicability is shown for a head-and-neck cancerpatient treated with IMRT. RESULTS: For single IMRT beams and a seven-field IMRT step-and-shoot plan, the dose distribution was reconstructed within 3%/3mm compared with the measured or planned dose. A three-dimensional conformal plan, verified using eight point-dose measurements, resulted in a difference of 1.3 +/- 3.3% (1 SD) compared with the reconstructed dose. For the patient case, planned and reconstructed dose distribution was within 3%/3mm for about 95% of the points within the 20% isodose line. Reconstructed mean dose values, obtained from dose-volume histograms, were within 3% of prescribed values for target volumes and normal tissues. CONCLUSIONS: We present a new method that verifies the dose delivered to a patient by combining in-room imaging with the transit dose measured during treatment. This verification procedure opens possibilities for offline adaptive radiotherapy and dose-guided radiotherapy strategies taking into account the dose distribution delivered during treatment sessions.
Authors: Valentina Giacometti; Raymond B King; Christina E Agnew; Denise M Irvine; Suneil Jain; Alan R Hounsell; Conor K McGarry Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Maud H W Starmans; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Georgi Nalbantov; Hugo J W L Aerts; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Paul C Boutros; Pierluigi Granone; Vincenzo Valentini; Adrian C Begg; Dirk De Ruysscher; Andre Dekker Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Wojciech Osewski; Lukasz Dolla; Michał Radwan; Marta Szlag; Roman Rutkowski; Barbara Smolińska; Krzysztof Slosarek Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2014-07-17
Authors: A Piermattei; F Greco; M Grusio; S Menna; L Azario; G Stimato; E Placidi; S Teodoli; S Cilla; A Porcelli; L Alberico; A Fidanzio Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Weixing Cai; Martina H Hurwitz; Christopher L Williams; Salam Dhou; Ross I Berbeco; Joao Seco; Pankaj Mishra; John H Lewis Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Igor Olaciregui-Ruiz; Sam Beddar; Peter Greer; Nuria Jornet; Boyd McCurdy; Gabriel Paiva-Fonseca; Ben Mijnheer; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-08-29
Authors: Krzysztof Ślosarek; Dominika Plaza; Aleksandra Nas; Marta Reudelsdorf; Jacek Wendykier; Barbara Bekman; Aleksandra Grządziel Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 2.102