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
  • [31] Highly hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer with a simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic lesions: a planning study
    Ashida, Ryo
    Nakamura, Kiyonao
    Aizawa, Rihito
    Iramina, Hiraku
    Takayama, Kenji
    Nakamura, Mitsuhiro
    Mizowaki, Takashi
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 40 (02) : 210 - 218
  • [32] MR SPECTROSCOPY IMAGING (MRSI) FOR GLIOBLASTOMA DOSE PAINTING WITH INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY COMPRISING SIMULTANEOUS INTEGRATED BOOST ON SPECIFIC TARGETS
    Ken, S.
    Vieillevigne, L.
    Franceries, X.
    Supper, C.
    Lotterie, J. A.
    Filleron, T.
    Lubrano, V.
    Berry, I.
    Cassol, E.
    Delannes, M.
    Celsis, P.
    Moyal, E. Cohen-Jonathan
    Laprie, A.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2012, 102 : S103 - S105
  • [33] High-Dose Planned Adaptive Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Synchronous Oligometastatic Pancreatic Cancer
    Hama, Yukihiro
    Tate, Etsuko
    CANCER INVESTIGATION, 2022, 40 (05) : 437 - 441
  • [34] Rectal Dose Constraints for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy of the Prostate
    Swanson, Gregory P.
    Stathakis, Sotirios
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2011, 34 (02): : 188 - 195
  • [35] Feasibility of Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy treatment plans in patients with localized carcinoma prostate
    Bansal, Anshuma
    Kapoor, Rakesh
    Kumar, Narendra
    Oinam, Arun S.
    Sharma, Suresh C.
    CLINICAL CANCER INVESTIGATION JOURNAL, 2012, 1 (04): : 206 - 211
  • [36] Impact of high-dose radiation on erectile function in patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer
    Chao, ST
    Reddy, CA
    Thakkar, VV
    Kupelian, PA
    Djemil, T
    Mahadevan, A
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2004, 60 (01): : S270 - S271
  • [37] The Efficacy and Safety of Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Patients With Stage III Small Cell Lung Cancer
    Zhiyan, L.
    Wang, P.
    Yuan, Z.
    Ji, K.
    Liu, W.
    Zhuang, H.
    Gong, L.
    Zhao, L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2013, 87 (02): : S530 - S531
  • [38] Intensity modulated radiation therapy: Film verification of planar dose maps
    P. Tangboonduangjit
    I. Wu
    M. Butson
    A. Rosenfeld
    P. Metcalfe
    Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 2003, 26 (4): : 194 - 199
  • [39] An independent dose verification method for dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy
    Chen, X
    Yue, N
    Saw, C
    Heron, D
    Stefanik, D
    Antemann, R
    Huq, M
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2005, 32 (06) : 2166 - 2167
  • [40] Efficacy and Prognostic Analysis of 315 Stage I-IVa Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated with Simultaneous Integrated Boost-Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
    Cai, Peng
    Yang, Yan
    Li, Duo-Jie
    CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, 2021, 13 : 6969 - 6975