PURPOSE: To simulate and evaluate the use of dynamic multileaf collimators (dMLC) in respiratory gating to compensate for baseline drift. METHODS: Tumor motion tracking data from 30 lung tumors over 322 treatment fractions was analyzed with the finite state model. A dynamic respiratory gating window was established in real-time by determining the average positions during the previous two end-of-expiration breathing phases and centering the dMLC aperture on a weighted average of these positions. A simulated dMLC with physical motion constraints was used in dynamic gating treatment simulations. Fluence maps were created to provide a statistical description of radiation delivery for each fraction. Duty cycle was also calculated for each fraction. RESULTS: The average duty cycle was 2.3% greater under dynamic gating conditions. Dynamic gating also showed higher fluences and less tumor obstruction. Additionally, dynamic gating required fewer beam toggles and each delivery period was longer on average than with static gating. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dynamic gating showed better performance than static gating and the physical constraints of a dMLC were shown to not be an impediment to dynamic gating.
PURPOSE: To simulate and evaluate the use of dynamic multileaf collimators (dMLC) in respiratory gating to compensate for baseline drift. METHODS: Tumor motion tracking data from 30 lung tumors over 322 treatment fractions was analyzed with the finite state model. A dynamic respiratory gating window was established in real-time by determining the average positions during the previous two end-of-expiration breathing phases and centering the dMLC aperture on a weighted average of these positions. A simulated dMLC with physical motion constraints was used in dynamic gating treatment simulations. Fluence maps were created to provide a statistical description of radiation delivery for each fraction. Duty cycle was also calculated for each fraction. RESULTS: The average duty cycle was 2.3% greater under dynamic gating conditions. Dynamic gating also showed higher fluences and less tumor obstruction. Additionally, dynamic gating required fewer beam toggles and each delivery period was longer on average than with static gating. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dynamic gating showed better performance than static gating and the physical constraints of a dMLC were shown to not be an impediment to dynamic gating.
Authors: G Loi; E Pignoli; M Scorsetti; V Cerreta; A Somigliana; R Marchesini; A Gramaglia; U Cerchiari; S B Ricci Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Per Rugaard Poulsen; Byungchul Cho; Dan Ruan; Amit Sawant; Paul J Keall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-02-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K Ohara; T Okumura; M Akisada; T Inada; T Mori; H Yokota; M J Calaguas Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1989-10 Impact factor: 7.038