PURPOSE: To analyze dose uncertainty using a previously published dose-uncertainty model, and to assess potential dosimetric risks existing in prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The dose-uncertainty model provides a three-dimensional (3D) dose-uncertainty distribution in a given confidence level. For 8 retrospectively selected patients, dose-uncertainty maps were constructed using the dose-uncertainty model at the 95% CL. In addition to uncertainties inherent to the radiation treatment planning system, four scenarios of spatial errors were considered: machine only (S1), S1 + intrafraction, S1 + interfraction, and S1 + both intrafraction and interfraction errors. To evaluate the potential risks of the IMRT plans, three dose-uncertainty-based plan evaluation tools were introduced: confidence-weighted dose-volume histogram, confidence-weighted dose distribution, and dose-uncertainty-volume histogram. RESULTS: Dose uncertainty caused by interfraction setup error was more significant than that of intrafraction motion error. The maximum dose uncertainty (95% confidence) of the clinical target volume (CTV) was smaller than 5% of the prescribed dose in all but two cases (13.9% and 10.2%). The dose uncertainty for 95% of the CTV volume ranged from 1.3% to 2.9% of the prescribed dose. CONCLUSIONS: The dose uncertainty in prostate IMRT could be evaluated using the dose-uncertainty model. Prostate IMRT plans satisfying the same plan objectives could generate a significantly different dose uncertainty because a complex interplay of many uncertainty sources. The uncertainty-based plan evaluation contributes to generating reliable and error-resistant treatment plans.
PURPOSE: To analyze dose uncertainty using a previously published dose-uncertainty model, and to assess potential dosimetric risks existing in prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The dose-uncertainty model provides a three-dimensional (3D) dose-uncertainty distribution in a given confidence level. For 8 retrospectively selected patients, dose-uncertainty maps were constructed using the dose-uncertainty model at the 95% CL. In addition to uncertainties inherent to the radiation treatment planning system, four scenarios of spatial errors were considered: machine only (S1), S1 + intrafraction, S1 + interfraction, and S1 + both intrafraction and interfraction errors. To evaluate the potential risks of the IMRT plans, three dose-uncertainty-based plan evaluation tools were introduced: confidence-weighted dose-volume histogram, confidence-weighted dose distribution, and dose-uncertainty-volume histogram. RESULTS: Dose uncertainty caused by interfraction setup error was more significant than that of intrafraction motion error. The maximum dose uncertainty (95% confidence) of the clinical target volume (CTV) was smaller than 5% of the prescribed dose in all but two cases (13.9% and 10.2%). The dose uncertainty for 95% of the CTV volume ranged from 1.3% to 2.9% of the prescribed dose. CONCLUSIONS: The dose uncertainty in prostate IMRT could be evaluated using the dose-uncertainty model. Prostate IMRT plans satisfying the same plan objectives could generate a significantly different dose uncertainty because a complex interplay of many uncertainty sources. The uncertainty-based plan evaluation contributes to generating reliable and error-resistant treatment plans.
Authors: Adam D Yock; Radhe Mohan; Stella Flampouri; Walter Bosch; Paige A Taylor; David Gladstone; Siyong Kim; Jason Sohn; Robert Wallace; Ying Xiao; Jeff Buchsbaum Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-15