PURPOSE: To determine the daily and cumulative dosimetric effects of intrafraction prostate motion on step-and-shoot (SNS) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, to evaluate the correlation of dosimetric effect with motion-based metrics, and to compare on a fraction-by-fraction basis the dosimetric effect induced in SNS and helical tomotherapy plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intrafraction prostate motion data from 486 fractions and 15 patients were available. A motion-encoded dose calculation technique was used to determine the variation of the clinical target volume (CTV) D(95%) values with respect to the static plan for SNS plans. The motion data were analyzed separately, and the correlation coefficients between various motion-based metrics and the dosimetric effect were determined. The dosimetric impact was compared with that incurred during another IMRT technique to assess correlation across different delivery techniques. RESULTS: The mean (±1 standard deviation [SD]) change in D(95%) in the CTV over all 486 fractions was 0.2 ± 0.5%. After the delivery of five and 12 fractions, the mean (±1 SD) changes over the 15 patients in CTV D(95%) were 0.0 ± 0.2% and 0.1 ± 0.2%, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the CTV D(95%) changes and the evaluated motion metrics were, in general, poor and ranged from r = -0.2 to r = -0.39. Dosimetric effects introduced by identical motion in SNS and helical tomotherapy IMRT techniques were poorly correlated with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.32 for the CTV. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion on the CTV is, in general, small. In only 4% of all fractions did the dosimetric consequence exceed 1% in the CTV. As expected, the cumulative effect was further reduced with fractionation. The poor correlations between the calculated motion parameters and the subsequent dosimetric effect implies that motion-based thresholds are of limited value in predicting the dosimetric impact of intrafraction motion. The dosimetric effects between the two evaluated delivery techniques were poorly correlated.
PURPOSE: To determine the daily and cumulative dosimetric effects of intrafraction prostate motion on step-and-shoot (SNS) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, to evaluate the correlation of dosimetric effect with motion-based metrics, and to compare on a fraction-by-fraction basis the dosimetric effect induced in SNS and helical tomotherapy plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intrafraction prostate motion data from 486 fractions and 15 patients were available. A motion-encoded dose calculation technique was used to determine the variation of the clinical target volume (CTV) D(95%) values with respect to the static plan for SNS plans. The motion data were analyzed separately, and the correlation coefficients between various motion-based metrics and the dosimetric effect were determined. The dosimetric impact was compared with that incurred during another IMRT technique to assess correlation across different delivery techniques. RESULTS: The mean (±1 standard deviation [SD]) change in D(95%) in the CTV over all 486 fractions was 0.2 ± 0.5%. After the delivery of five and 12 fractions, the mean (±1 SD) changes over the 15 patients in CTV D(95%) were 0.0 ± 0.2% and 0.1 ± 0.2%, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the CTV D(95%) changes and the evaluated motion metrics were, in general, poor and ranged from r = -0.2 to r = -0.39. Dosimetric effects introduced by identical motion in SNS and helical tomotherapy IMRT techniques were poorly correlated with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.32 for the CTV. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion on the CTV is, in general, small. In only 4% of all fractions did the dosimetric consequence exceed 1% in the CTV. As expected, the cumulative effect was further reduced with fractionation. The poor correlations between the calculated motion parameters and the subsequent dosimetric effect implies that motion-based thresholds are of limited value in predicting the dosimetric impact of intrafraction motion. The dosimetric effects between the two evaluated delivery techniques were poorly correlated.
Authors: Ben J Waghorn; Amish P Shah; Wilfred Ngwa; Sanford L Meeks; Joseph A Moore; Jeffrey V Siebers; Katja M Langen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Katja M Langen; Weiguo Lu; Wilfred Ngwa; Twyla R Willoughby; Bhavin Chauhan; Sanford L Meeks; Patrick A Kupelian; Gustavo Olivera Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Heinz Deutschmann; Gerhard Kametriser; Philipp Steininger; Philipp Scherer; Helmut Schöller; Christoph Gaisberger; Michaela Mooslechner; Bernhard Mitterlechner; Harald Weichenberger; Gert Fastner; Karl Wurstbauer; Stephan Jeschke; Rosemarie Forstner; Felix Sedlmayer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Haisen S Li; Indrin J Chetty; Charles A Enke; Ryan D Foster; Twyla R Willoughby; Patrick A Kupellian; Timothy D Solberg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gerard J van der Wielen; Theodore F Mutanga; Luca Incrocci; Wim J Kirkels; Eliana M Vasquez Osorio; Mischa S Hoogeman; Ben J M Heijmen; Hans C J de Boer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Charis Kontaxis; Daan M de Muinck Keizer; Linda G W Kerkmeijer; Thomas Willigenburg; Mariska D den Hartogh; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Eline N de Groot-van Breugel; Jochem Hes; Bas W Raaymakers; Jan J W Lagendijk; Hans C J de Boer Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-07-13
Authors: Casper Gammelmark Muurholm; Thomas Ravkilde; Robin De Roover; Simon Skouboe; Rune Hansen; Wouter Crijns; Tom Depuydt; Per R Poulsen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 4.506