Dose Verification for Tumor Motion with Different Treatment Planning Systems: A Dynamic Thorax Phantom Study

被引:0
|
作者
Shih-Neng Yang
Chun-Wei Lin
Mu-Bai Chang
Geoffrey G. Zhang
Kuei-Ting Chou
Yu-Rou Chiou
Shung-Shung Sun
Louis Lui
Tsung-Jung Ho
Tzung-Chi Huang
机构
[1] China Medical University,Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Science
[2] China Medical University Hospital,Department of Radiation Oncology
[3] Cathay General Hospital,Department of Radiation Oncology
[4] Tainan Municipal An-Nan Hospital,Department of Radiation Oncology
[5] Moffitt Cancer Center,Department of Radiation Oncology
[6] China Medical University Hospital,Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center
[7] China Medical University,College of Chinese Medicine
[8] Asia University,Department of Bioinformatics and Medical Engineering
关键词
Four-dimensional computed tomography; Maximum-intensity projection; Respiratory motion; Dose verification;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
During radiation therapy for lung cancer, the respiratory motion of the target increases error and affects the treatment outcome. A four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) technology developed recently can be used to obtain snapshot thoracic CT images during the entire respiratory cycle, which can be helpful in visualization of the tumor displacement in respiratory motion. This study employed a dynamic phantom to simulate tumor respiratory motion, with motion amplitudes of 2, 5 and 10 mm in the superior-inferior direction and motion periods of 4 and 6 s. 4D-CT imaging was applied to record the movement of the target, and maximum-intensity projection (MIP) imaging was used to define the internal target volume (ITV). Treatment plans were generated using three different treatment techniques—tomotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). In addition, using interchangeable insert modules (an ionization chamber for point dose measurement and Gafchromic EBT3 film for planar dose distribution) in the dynamic phantom, the dose received by the target was measured. The dose received with motion was compared with that received under stationary conditions for dose errors due to respiratory motion. The point dose differences between moving and stationary conditions for tomotherapy, IMRT and VMAT were 0.48 ± 0.51%, 0.17 ± 0.45%, and 0.68 ± 0.70%, respectively; and at motion amplitudes of 2, 5, and 10 mm, the mean dose differences were 0.27 ± 0.38%, 0.37 ± 0.55% and 0.68 ± 0.74%, respectively. Based on planar dose analysis, at motion amplitudes of 2 and 5 mm, the dose distribution differences between moving and stationary conditions using the three treatment methods were all very small, and all passed the gamma index test with a criterion of 3%/3 mm, while at an amplitude of 10 mm, the edge of the ITV was associated with significantly greater dose errors. As studies have shown that in only approximately 10% of pulmonary tumors move with an amplitude >10 mm, 4D-CT MIP imaging in combination with delineation of the ITV may resolve the issue of dose error in most cases. For tumors with large motion amplitudes due to respiration, respiratory gating method may be used to reduce healthy lung tissues inside treatment field.
引用
收藏
页码:46 / 54
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] The importance of accurate treatment planning, delivery, and dose verification
    Malicki, Julian
    REPORTS OF PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY AND RADIOTHERAPY, 2012, 17 (02) : 63 - 65
  • [32] Verification of IMRT dose distribution in treatment planning and delivery
    Bulski, W
    Chelminski, K
    Skrzynski, W
    Rostkowaka, J
    Kania, M
    Kaminski, P
    Zawadzka, A
    Gizynska, M
    Bodzak, DI
    Sekowski, P
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2005, 76 : S174 - S174
  • [33] Application of optically stimulated luminescence 'nanoDot' dosimeters for dose verification of VMAT treatment planning using an anthropomorphic stereotactic end-to-end verification phantom
    Villani, Daniel
    Mancini, Anselmo
    Haddad, Cecilia M. K.
    Campos, Leticia L.
    RADIATION MEASUREMENTS, 2017, 106 : 321 - 325
  • [34] Development of a phantom to validate high-dose-rate brachytherapy treatment planning systems with heterogeneous algorithms
    Moura, Eduardo S.
    Micka, John A.
    Hammer, Cliff G.
    Culberson, Wesley S.
    DeWerd, Larry A.
    Rostelato, Maria Elisa C. M.
    Zeituni, Carlos A.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (04) : 1566 - 1574
  • [35] A Computational Phantom of the Thorax Combining Anatomical and Respiratory Motion Models: Feasibility Study and Preliminary Developments
    Seregni, M.
    Riboldi, M.
    Baroni, G.
    Sharp, G.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 3025 - 3025
  • [36] Alanine/EPR dosimetry applied to the verification of a total body irradiation protocol and treatment planning dose calculation using a humanoid phantom
    Schaeken, B.
    Lelie, S.
    Meijnders, P.
    Van den Weyngaert, D.
    Janssens, H.
    Verellen, D.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (12) : 6292 - 6299
  • [37] Six degrees of freedom dynamic motion-including dose reconstruction in a treatment planning system
    Skouboe, S.
    De Roover, R.
    Muurholm, C. G.
    Crijns, W.
    Ravkilde, T.
    Hansen, R.
    Depuydt, T.
    Poulsen, P. R.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2020, 152 : S395 - S396
  • [38] A study on the tumor volume computation between different 3D treatment planning systems in radiotherapy
    Prabhakar, Ramachandran
    Rath, Goura Kishor
    Haresh, Kunhi Parambath
    Manoharan, Nalliah
    Laviraj, Macherla Anjaneyulu
    Rajendran, Molaiyan
    Julka, Pramod Kumar
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2011, 7 (02) : 168 - 173
  • [39] Verification of the lung dose calculation of a commercial IMRT planning system using a realistic lung phantom
    Aljarrah, K.
    Pope, C.
    Jiang, S. B.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2247 - 2247
  • [40] DOSIMETRIC VERIFICATION OF RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEMS: RESULTS OF IAEA PILOT STUDY
    Gershkevitsh, E.
    Schmidt, R.
    Velez, G.
    Miller, D.
    Korf, E.
    Yip, F.
    Wanwilairat, S.
    Vatnitsky, S.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2008, 88 : S115 - S115