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
  • [21] Intensity modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost based dose escalation on neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced distal esophageal adenocarcinoma
    Ming Zeng
    Fernando N Aguila
    Taral Patel
    Mark Knapp
    XueQiang Zhu
    XiLin Chen
    Phillip D Price
    World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology, 2016, 8 (05) : 474 - 480
  • [22] Measurement-based Monte Carlo simulation of high definition dose evaluation for nasopharyngeal cancer patients treated by using intensity modulated radiation therapy
    Yeh, C. Y.
    Tung, C. J.
    Lee, C. C.
    Lin, M. H.
    Chao, T. C.
    RADIATION MEASUREMENTS, 2014, 71 : 333 - 337
  • [23] Postoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost in prostate cancer: A dose-escalation trial
    Ippolito, Edy
    Cellini, Numa
    Digesu, Cinzia
    Cilla, Savino
    Mantini, Giovanna
    Balducci, Mario
    Di Lallo, Alessandra
    Deodato, Francesco
    Macchia, Gabriella
    Massaccesi, Mariangela
    Mattiucci, Gian Carlo
    Tagliaferri, Luca
    Piermattei, Angelo
    Cuscuna, Daniele
    Morganti, Alessio G.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2013, 31 (01) : 87 - 92
  • [24] THREE-YEAR OUTCOMES OF BREAST INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY WITH SIMULTANEOUS INTEGRATED BOOST
    McDonald, Mark W.
    Godette, Karen D.
    Whitaker, Daisy J.
    Davis, Lawrence W.
    Johnstone, Peter A. S.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 77 (02): : 523 - 530
  • [25] Highly hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer with a simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic lesions: a planning study
    Ryo Ashida
    Kiyonao Nakamura
    Rihito Aizawa
    Hiraku Iramina
    Kenji Takayama
    Mitsuhiro Nakamura
    Takashi Mizowaki
    Japanese Journal of Radiology, 2022, 40 : 210 - 218
  • [26] Concurrent hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost technique and temozolomide for glioblastoma
    Kim, J. H.
    Shin, S. S.
    Song, S. Y.
    Yang, S-H.
    Choi, E. K.
    Ahn, S. D.
    Lee, S-W.
    Kim, J. H.
    Kim, J. H.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2006, 81 : S292 - S292
  • [27] Feasibility of simultaneous integrated boost with forward intensity-modulated radiation therapy for multiple brain metastases
    Ni, Lingqin
    Liang, Xiaodong
    WSPOLCZESNA ONKOLOGIA-CONTEMPORARY ONCOLOGY, 2014, 18 (03): : 187 - 191
  • [28] Simultaneous integrated boost with intensity modulated radiation therapy in brain oligometastases: A feasible technique for developing countries
    Tiwari, Vivek
    Pande, Subodh C.
    Verma, Kamal
    Goel, Sandeep
    SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2015, 4 (01) : 11 - 14
  • [29] Concurrent hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost technique and temozolomide for glioblastoma
    Shin, S.
    Song, S.
    Yang, S.
    Choi, E.
    Ahn, S.
    Lee, S.
    Kim, J.
    Kim, J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2006, 66 (03): : S254 - S254
  • [30] Optimal beam design on intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost in nasopharyngeal cancer
    Cheng, Mei-Chun
    Hu, Yu-Wen
    Liu, Ching-Sheng
    Lee, Jeun-Shenn
    Huang, Pin-I
    Yen, Sang-Hue
    Lee, Yuh-Lin
    Hsieh, Chun-Mei
    Shiau, Cheng-Ying
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2014, 39 (03) : 246 - 250