Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy

被引:6
|
作者
Dogan, Nesrin [1 ]
Mihaylov, Ivaylo [2 ]
Wu, Yan [1 ]
Keall, Paul J. [3 ]
Siebers, Jeffrey V. [1 ]
Hagan, Michael P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Richmond, VA 23298 USA
[2] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Dept Radiat Oncol, Little Rock, AR 72205 USA
[3] Stanford Univ, Ctr Canc, Dept Radiat Oncol, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
来源
RADIATION ONCOLOGY | 2009年 / 4卷
关键词
TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM; QUANTITATIVE-EVALUATION; MULTILEAF COLLIMATORS; OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM; ELECTRON-TRANSPORT; RADIOTHERAPY PLANS; IMRT; HEAD; NECK; BEAM;
D O I
10.1186/1748-717X-4-18
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between Superposition/Convolution (SC) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculated dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) prostate cancer intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to experimental (film) measurements and the implications for clinical treatments. Methods: Twenty-two prostate patients treated with an in-house SIB-IMRT protocol were selected. SC-based plans used for treatment were re-evaluated with EGS4-based MC calculations for treatment verification. Accuracy was evaluated with-respect-to film-based dosimetry. Comparisons used gamma (gamma)-index, distance-to-agreement (DTA), and superimposed dose distributions. The treatment plans were also compared based on dose-volume indices and 3-D gamma index for targets and critical structures. Results: Flat-phantom comparisons demonstrated that the MC algorithm predicted measurements better than the SC algorithm. The average PTVprostate D-98 agreement between SC and MC was 1.2% +/- 1.1. For rectum, the average differences in SC and MC calculated D-50 ranged from -3.6% to 3.4%. For small bowel, there were up to 30.2% +/- 40.7 (range: 0.2%, 115%) differences between SC and MC calculated average D-50 index. For femurs, the differences in average D-50 reached up to 8.6% +/- 3.6 (range: 1.2%, 14.5%). For PTVprostate and PTVnodes, the average gamma scores were >95.0%. Conclusion: MC agrees better with film measurements than SC. Although, on average, SC-calculated doses agreed with MC calculations within the targets within 2%, there were deviations up to 5% for some patient's treatment plans. For some patients, the magnitude of such deviations might decrease the intended target dose levels that are required for the treatment protocol, placing the patients in different dose levels that do not satisfy the protocol dose requirements.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy
    Nesrin Dogan
    Ivaylo Mihaylov
    Yan Wu
    Paul J Keall
    Jeffrey V Siebers
    Michael P Hagan
    Radiation Oncology, 4
  • [2] Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost IMRT
    Dogan, N.
    Mihaylov, I.
    Wu, Y.
    Keall, P.
    Siebers, J.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2248 - 2248
  • [3] Monte Carlo dose verification for intensity-modulated arc therapy
    Li, XA
    Ma, LJ
    Naqvi, S
    Shih, RP
    Yu, C
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2001, 46 (09): : 2269 - 2282
  • [4] Comparison of Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and Standard Dose with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Esophageal Carcinoma
    Bai, W.
    Zhang, R.
    Qiao, X.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E559 - E559
  • [5] Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Clinically Node-Positive Prostate Cancer
    Kawamura, H.
    Murata, K.
    Takakusagi, Y.
    Okonogi, N.
    Kubo, N.
    Mizukami, T.
    Sato, H.
    Adachi, A. N.
    Saitoh, J. I.
    Fukuma, Y.
    Hatori, M.
    Ohtake, N.
    Sekihara, T.
    Ando, Y.
    Matsui, H.
    Ito, K.
    Suzuki, K.
    Nakano, T.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2016, 96 (02): : E243 - E244
  • [6] The impact of Monte Carlo dose calculations on intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Siebers, JV
    Keall, PJ
    Mohan, R
    ADVANCED MONTE CARLO FOR RADIATION PHYSICS, PARTICLE TRANSPORT SIMULATION AND APPLICATIONS, 2001, : 205 - 210
  • [7] Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Hypopharyngeal Cancer
    Yoshimura, M.
    Matsuo, Y.
    Mizowaki, T.
    Narabayashi, M.
    Nakamura, A.
    Ito, H.
    Miyagi, K.
    Nakamura, D.
    Nagata, Y.
    Hiraoka, M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 84 (03): : S491 - S491
  • [8] Analysis of toxicity in patients with high risk prostate cancer treated with intensity-modulated pelvic radiation therapy and simultaneous integrated dose escalation to prostate area
    Arcangeli, Stefano
    Saracino, Biancarnaria
    Petrongari, Maria Grazia
    Gornetlini, Sara
    Marzi, Simona
    Landoni, Vateria
    Gallucci, Michele
    Sperduti, Isabella
    Arcangeli, Giorgio
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 84 (02) : 148 - 155
  • [9] Efficacy of simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiation therapy in patients with LD-SCLC
    Li, B.
    Han, D.
    Huang, W.
    Zhou, T.
    Zhang, Z.
    Wang, Z.
    Wei, Y.
    Lin, H.
    Li, H.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2015, 115 : S318 - S319
  • [10] The Monte Carlo simulation on the dose disturbance effect of the dentures in intensity modulated radiation therapy
    Sheu, R
    Yeh, C
    Chen, C
    Lee, C
    Chao, T
    Chang, B
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2004, 31 (06) : 1921 - 1921