Literature DB >> 19378734

Integral dose conservation in radiotherapy.

Adam S Reese1, Shiva K Das, Charles Curie, Lawrence B Marks.   

Abstract

Treatment planners frequently modify beam arrangements and use IMRT to improve target dose coverage while satisfying dose constraints on normal tissues. The authors herein analyze the limitations of these strategies and quantitatively assess the extent to which dose can be redistributed within the patient volume. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that (1) the normalized integral dose is constant across concentric shells of normal tissue surrounding the target (normalized to the average integral shell dose), (2) the normalized integral shell dose is constant across plans with different numbers and orientations of beams, and (3) the normalized integral shell dose is constant across plans when reducing the dose to a critical structure. Using the images of seven patients previously irradiated for cancer of brain or prostate cancer and one idealized scenario, competing three-dimensional conformal and IMRT plans were generated using different beam configurations. Within a given plan and for competing plans with a constant mean target dose, the normalized integral doses within concentric "shells" of surrounding normal tissue were quantitatively compared. Within each patient, the normalized integral dose to shells of normal tissue surrounding the target was relatively constant (1). Similarly, for each clinical scenario, the normalized integral dose for a given shell was also relatively constant regardless of the number and orientation of beams (2) or degree of sparing of a critical structure (3). 3D and IMRT planning tools can redistribute, rather than eliminate dose to the surrounding normal tissues (intuitively known by planners). More specifically, dose cannot be moved between shells surrounding the target but only within a shell. This implies that there are limitations in the extent to which a critical structure can be spared based on the location and geometry of the critical structure relative to the target.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19378734     DOI: 10.1118/1.3070585

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


  8 in total

1.  Cleaning the dose falloff in lung SBRT plan.

Authors:  Dharmin Desai; Ganesh Narayanasamy; Milan Bimali; Ivan Cordrey; Hisham Elasmar; Senthamizhchelvan Srinivasan; Ellis Lee Johnson
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 2.102

2.  The minimum knowledge base for predicting organ-at-risk dose-volume levels and plan-related complications in IMRT planning.

Authors:  Hao H Zhang; Robert R Meyer; Leyuan Shi; Warren D D'Souza
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  The surface area effect: How the intermediate dose spill depends on the PTV surface area in SRS.

Authors:  Dharmin D Desai; E L Johnson; Ivan L Cordrey
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Feasibility of extreme dose escalation for glioblastoma multiforme using 4π radiotherapy.

Authors:  Dan Nguyen; Jean-Claude M Rwigema; Victoria Y Yu; Tania Kaprealian; Patrick Kupelian; Michael Selch; Percy Lee; Daniel A Low; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Data-Driven Dose-Volume Histogram Prediction.

Authors:  Mitchell Polizzi; Robert W Watkins; William T Watkins
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-10-27

6.  Why Do Both Mean Dose and V ≥x Often Predict Normal Tissue Outcomes?

Authors:  Lawrence B Marks; Stefan A Reinsberg; Ellen Yorke; Vitali Moiseenko
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-07-28

7.  Dose escalation to high-risk sub-volumes based on non-invasive imaging of hypoxia and glycolytic activity in canine solid tumors: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Malene M Clausen; Anders E Hansen; Per Munck Af Rosenschold; Andreas Kjaer; Annemarie T Kristensen; Fintan J McEvoy; Svend A Engelholm
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  An analytical expression for R50% dependent on PTV surface area and volume: a lung SBRT comparison.

Authors:  Dharmin D Desai; E L Johnson; Ivan L Cordrey
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 2.243

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.