PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to investigate the relationship between dynamically accumulated dose (dynamic dose) and 4D accumulated dose (4D dose) for irradiation of moving tumors, and to quantify the dose uncertainty induced by tumor motion. METHODS: The authors established that regardless of treatment modality and delivery properties, the dynamic dose will converge to the 4D dose, instead of the 3D static dose, after multiple deliveries. The bounds of dynamic dose, or the maximum estimation error using 4D or static dose, were established for the 4D and static doses, respectively. Numerical simulations were performed (1) to prove the principle that for each phase, after multiple deliveries, the average number of deliveries for any given time converges to the total number of fractions (K) over the number of phases (N); (2) to investigate the dose difference between the 4D and dynamic doses as a function of the number of deliveries for deliveries of a "pulsed beam"; and (3) to investigate the dose difference between 4D dose and dynamic doses as a function of delivery time for deliveries of a "continuous beam." A Poisson model was developed to estimate the mean dose error as a function of number of deliveries or delivered time for both pulsed beam and continuous beam. RESULTS: The numerical simulations confirmed that the number of deliveries for each phase converges to K∕N, assuming a random starting phase. Simulations for the pulsed beam and continuous beam also suggested that the dose error is a strong function of the number of deliveries and∕or total deliver time and could be a function of the breathing cycle, depending on the mode of delivery. The Poisson model agrees well with the simulation. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamically accumulated dose will converge to the 4D accumulated dose after multiple deliveries, regardless of treatment modality. Bounds of the dynamic dose could be determined using quantities derived from 4D doses, and the mean dose difference between the dynamic dose and 4D dose as a function of number of deliveries and∕or total deliver time was also established.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to investigate the relationship between dynamically accumulated dose (dynamic dose) and 4D accumulated dose (4D dose) for irradiation of moving tumors, and to quantify the dose uncertainty induced by tumor motion. METHODS: The authors established that regardless of treatment modality and delivery properties, the dynamic dose will converge to the 4D dose, instead of the 3D static dose, after multiple deliveries. The bounds of dynamic dose, or the maximum estimation error using 4D or static dose, were established for the 4D and static doses, respectively. Numerical simulations were performed (1) to prove the principle that for each phase, after multiple deliveries, the average number of deliveries for any given time converges to the total number of fractions (K) over the number of phases (N); (2) to investigate the dose difference between the 4D and dynamic doses as a function of the number of deliveries for deliveries of a "pulsed beam"; and (3) to investigate the dose difference between 4D dose and dynamic doses as a function of delivery time for deliveries of a "continuous beam." A Poisson model was developed to estimate the mean dose error as a function of number of deliveries or delivered time for both pulsed beam and continuous beam. RESULTS: The numerical simulations confirmed that the number of deliveries for each phase converges to K∕N, assuming a random starting phase. Simulations for the pulsed beam and continuous beam also suggested that the dose error is a strong function of the number of deliveries and∕or total deliver time and could be a function of the breathing cycle, depending on the mode of delivery. The Poisson model agrees well with the simulation. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamically accumulated dose will converge to the 4D accumulated dose after multiple deliveries, regardless of treatment modality. Bounds of the dynamic dose could be determined using quantities derived from 4D doses, and the mean dose difference between the dynamic dose and 4D dose as a function of number of deliveries and∕or total deliver time was also established.
Authors: Steve B Jiang; Cynthia Pope; Khaled M Al Jarrah; Jong H Kung; Thomas Bortfeld; George T Y Chen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2003-06-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Paul J Keall; Sarang Joshi; S Sastry Vedam; Jeffrey V Siebers; Vijaykumar R Kini; Radhe Mohan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Heng Li; X Ronald Zhu; Zhongxing Liao; Lina Zhao; Amy Liu; Yupeng Li; Narayan Sahoo; Falk Poenisch; Daniel R Gomez; Richard Wu; Michael Gillin; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yupeng Li; Laleh Kardar; Xiaoqiang Li; Heng Li; Wenhua Cao; Joe Y Chang; Li Liao; Ronald X Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael Gillin; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Gino Lim; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Laleh Kardar; Yupeng Li; Xiaoqiang Li; Heng Li; Wenhua Cao; Joe Y Chang; Li Liao; Ronald X Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael Gillin; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Gino Lim; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-08-12
Authors: Wei Liu; Steven E Schild; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Yu-Hui Chang; Zhifei Wen; Jiajian Shen; Joshua B Stoker; Xiaoning Ding; Yanle Hu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael G Herman; Carlos Vargas; Sameer Keole; William Wong; Martin Bues Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 7.038
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
Authors: Chenbin Liu; Steven E Schild; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Shawn Korte; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Yanle Hu; Yixiu Kang; Sameer R Keole; Terence T Sio; William W Wong; Narayan Sahoo; Martin Bues; Wei Liu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James E Younkin; Danairis Hernandez Morales; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Joshua B Stoker; Nathan Y Yu; Terence T Sio; Thomas B Daniels; Martin Bues; Mirek Fatyga; Steven E Schild; Wei Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.506