Emma Colvill1, Jeremy T Booth2, Ricky T O'Brien3, Thomas N Eade4, Andrew B Kneebone4, Per R Poulsen5, Paul J Keall6. 1. Radiation Physics Laboratory, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia. 2. Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia; School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Radiation Physics Laboratory, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia. 5. Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Radiation Physics Laboratory, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: paul.keall@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking improves the consistency between the planned and delivered dose compared with the dose without MLC tracking, in the setting of a prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Multileaf collimator tracking was implemented for 15 patients in a prostate cancer radiation therapy trial; in total, 513 treatment fractions were delivered. During each treatment fraction, the prostate trajectory and treatment MLC positions were collected. These data were used as input for dose reconstruction (multiple isocenter shift method) to calculate the treated dose (with MLC tracking) and the dose that would have been delivered had MLC tracking not been applied (without MLC tracking). The percentage difference from planned for target and normal tissue dose-volume points were calculated. The hypothesis was tested for each dose-volume value via analysis of variance using the F test. RESULTS: Of the 513 fractions delivered, 475 (93%) were suitable for analysis. The mean difference and standard deviation between the planned and treated MLC tracking doses and the planned and without-MLC tracking doses for all 475 fractions were, respectively, PTV D99% -0.8% ± 1.1% versus -2.1% ± 2.7%; CTV D99% -0.6% ± 0.8% versus -0.6% ± 1.1%; rectum V65% 1.6% ± 7.9% versus -1.2% ± 18%; and bladder V65% 0.5% ± 4.4% versus -0.0% ± 9.2% (P<.001 for all dose-volume results). CONCLUSION: This study shows that MLC tracking improves the consistency between the planned and delivered doses compared with the modeled doses without MLC tracking. The implications of this finding are potentially improved patient outcomes, as well as more reliable dose-volume data for radiobiological parameter determination.
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking improves the consistency between the planned and delivered dose compared with the dose without MLC tracking, in the setting of a prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Multileaf collimator tracking was implemented for 15 patients in a prostate cancer radiation therapy trial; in total, 513 treatment fractions were delivered. During each treatment fraction, the prostate trajectory and treatment MLC positions were collected. These data were used as input for dose reconstruction (multiple isocenter shift method) to calculate the treated dose (with MLC tracking) and the dose that would have been delivered had MLC tracking not been applied (without MLC tracking). The percentage difference from planned for target and normal tissue dose-volume points were calculated. The hypothesis was tested for each dose-volume value via analysis of variance using the F test. RESULTS: Of the 513 fractions delivered, 475 (93%) were suitable for analysis. The mean difference and standard deviation between the planned and treated MLC tracking doses and the planned and without-MLC tracking doses for all 475 fractions were, respectively, PTV D99% -0.8% ± 1.1% versus -2.1% ± 2.7%; CTV D99% -0.6% ± 0.8% versus -0.6% ± 1.1%; rectum V65% 1.6% ± 7.9% versus -1.2% ± 18%; and bladder V65% 0.5% ± 4.4% versus -0.0% ± 9.2% (P<.001 for all dose-volume results). CONCLUSION: This study shows that MLC tracking improves the consistency between the planned and delivered doses compared with the modeled doses without MLC tracking. The implications of this finding are potentially improved patient outcomes, as well as more reliable dose-volume data for radiobiological parameter determination.
Authors: Vincent Caillet; Ricky O'Brien; Douglas Moore; Per Poulsen; Tobias Pommer; Emma Colvill; Amit Sawant; Jeremy Booth; Paul Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Paul J Keall; Caterina Brighi; Carri Glide-Hurst; Gary Liney; Paul Z Y Liu; Suzanne Lydiard; Chiara Paganelli; Trang Pham; Shanshan Shan; Alison C Tree; Uulke A van der Heide; David E J Waddington; Brendan Whelan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 65.011
Authors: Ilana Feain; Chun-Chien Shieh; Paul White; Ricky O'Brien; Sandra Fisher; William Counter; Peter Lazarakis; David Stewart; Simon Downes; Michael Jackson; Siddhartha Baxi; Brendan Whelan; Kuldeep Makhija; Chen-Yu Huang; Michael Barton; Paul Keall Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-11-08
Authors: M Glitzner; M F Fast; B Denis de Senneville; S Nill; U Oelfke; J J W Lagendijk; B W Raaymakers; S P M Crijns Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-12-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Cornelis Ph Kamerling; Martin F Fast; Peter Ziegenhein; Martin J Menten; Simeon Nill; Uwe Oelfke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.071