Literature DB >> 33128499

Effect of MU-weighted multi-leaf collimator position error on dose distribution of SBRT radiotherapy in peripheral non-small cell lung cancer.

AiHui Feng1, Hua Chen1, Hao Wang1, HengLe Gu1, Yan Shao1, YanHua Duan1, YanChen Ying2, Ning Jeff Yue3, ZhiYong Xu1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Position accuracy of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) is essential in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). This study is aimed to investigate the dosimetric impacts of the MU-weighted MLC positioning uncertainties of SBRT for patients with early stage peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS: Three types of MLC position error were simulated: Type 1, random error; Type 2, system shift, in which both MLC banks shifted to the left or right direction; and Type 3, in which both MLC banks moved with same magnitudes in the opposite directions. Two baseline plans were generated: an automatic plan (AP) and a manually optimized plan (MP). Multi-leaf collimator position errors were introduced to generate simulated plans with the preset MLC leaf position errors, which were then reimported into the Pinnacle system to generate simulated plans, respectively. The dosimetric parameters (CI, nCI, GI, etc.) and gEUD values of PTV and OARs were calculated. Linear regression between MU-weighted/unweighted MLC position error and gEUD was performed to obtain dose sensitivity.
RESULTS: The dose sensitivities of the PTVs were -4.93, -38.94, -41.70, -55.55, and 30.33 Gy/mm for random, left shift, right shift, system close, and system open MLC errors, respectively. There were significant differences between the MU-weighted and the unweighted dose sensitivity, which was -38.94 Gy/mm vs -3.42 Gy/mm (left shift), -41.70 Gy/mm vs -3.56 Gy/mm (right shift), -55.55 Gy/mm vs -4.84 Gy/mm (system close), and 30.33 vs 2.64 Gy/mm (system open). For the system open/close MLC errors, as the PTV volume became larger, the dose sensitivity decreased. APs provided smaller dose sensitivity for the system shift and system close MLC errors compared to the conventional MPs.
CONCLUSIONS: There was significant difference in dose sensitivity between MU-weighted and unweighted MLC position error of SBRT radiotherapy in peripheral NSCLC. MU is suggested to be included in the dosimetric evaluation of the MLC misalignments, since it is much closer to clinical radiotherapy.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MLC position error; MU-weighted; SBRT; auto-planning

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33128499      PMCID: PMC7769390          DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys        ISSN: 1526-9914            Impact factor:   2.102


  20 in total

1.  Tolerances on MLC leaf position accuracy for IMRT delivery with a dynamic MLC.

Authors:  Alejandra Rangel; Peter Dunscombe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Auto-planning for VMAT accelerated partial breast irradiation.

Authors:  Livia Marrazzo; Icro Meattini; Chiara Arilli; Silvia Calusi; Marta Casati; Cinzia Talamonti; Lorenzo Livi; Stefania Pallotta
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 6.280

3.  Automatic planning on hippocampal avoidance whole-brain radiotherapy.

Authors:  Shuo Wang; Dandan Zheng; Chi Zhang; Rongtao Ma; Nathan R Bennion; Yu Lei; Xiaofeng Zhu; Charles A Enke; Sumin Zhou
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2017 Spring       Impact factor: 1.482

4.  Cross-institutional knowledge-based planning (KBP) implementation and its performance comparison to Auto-Planning Engine (APE).

Authors:  Binbin Wu; Martijn Kusters; Martina Kunze-Busch; Tim Dijkema; Todd McNutt; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Karl Bzdusek; Anatoly Dritschilo; Dalong Pang
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 6.280

5.  Knowledge-based automated planning for oropharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Aaron Babier; Justin J Boutilier; Andrea L McNiven; Timothy C Y Chan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials.

Authors:  Joe Y Chang; Suresh Senan; Marinus A Paul; Reza J Mehran; Alexander V Louie; Peter Balter; Harry J M Groen; Stephen E McRae; Joachim Widder; Lei Feng; Ben E E M van den Borne; Mark F Munsell; Coen Hurkmans; Donald A Berry; Erik van Werkhoven; John J Kresl; Anne-Marie Dingemans; Omar Dawood; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Larry S Carpenter; Katrien De Jaeger; Ritsuko Komaki; Ben J Slotman; Egbert F Smit; Jack A Roth
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Automatic treatment planning based on three-dimensional dose distribution predicted from deep learning technique.

Authors:  Jiawei Fan; Jiazhou Wang; Zhi Chen; Chaosu Hu; Zhen Zhang; Weigang Hu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Automatic treatment planning improves the clinical quality of head and neck cancer treatment plans.

Authors:  Christian Rønn Hansen; Anders Bertelsen; Irene Hazell; Ruta Zukauskaite; Niels Gyldenkerne; Jørgen Johansen; Jesper G Eriksen; Carsten Brink
Journal:  Clin Transl Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-09-19

9.  Automatic planning of head and neck treatment plans.

Authors:  Irene Hazell; Karl Bzdusek; Prashant Kumar; Christian R Hansen; Anders Bertelsen; Jesper G Eriksen; Jørgen Johansen; Carsten Brink
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Evaluation of an automated knowledge based treatment planning system for head and neck.

Authors:  Jerome Krayenbuehl; Ian Norton; Gabriela Studer; Matthias Guckenberger
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 3.481

View more
  1 in total

1.  Identification of a potential source of error for 6FFF beams delivered on an AgilityTM multileaf collimator.

Authors:  Friedlieb H Lorenz; Matthew I Paris
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.102

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.