Cargando…

What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT

BACKGROUND: The study summarised in this report aimed to investigate the interplay between fluence complexity, dose calculation algorithms, dose calculation spatial resolution and delivery characteristics (monitor units, effective field width and dose delivery against dose prediction agreement) was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Giorgia, Nicolini, Antonella, Fogliata, Eugenio, Vanetti, Alessandro, Clivio, Filippo, Ammazzalorso, Luca, Cozzi
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2234418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18036217
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-2-42
_version_ 1782150362857209856
author Giorgia, Nicolini
Antonella, Fogliata
Eugenio, Vanetti
Alessandro, Clivio
Filippo, Ammazzalorso
Luca, Cozzi
author_facet Giorgia, Nicolini
Antonella, Fogliata
Eugenio, Vanetti
Alessandro, Clivio
Filippo, Ammazzalorso
Luca, Cozzi
author_sort Giorgia, Nicolini
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The study summarised in this report aimed to investigate the interplay between fluence complexity, dose calculation algorithms, dose calculation spatial resolution and delivery characteristics (monitor units, effective field width and dose delivery against dose prediction agreement) was investigated. A sample set of complex planning cases was selected and tested using a commercial treatment planning system capable of inverse optimisation and equipped with tools to tune fluence smoothness. METHODS: A set of increasingly smoothed fluence patterns was correlated to a generalised expression of the Modulation Index (MI) concept, in nature independent from the specific planning system used that could therefore be recommended as a predictor to score fluence "quality" at a very early stage of the IMRT QA process. Fluence complexity was also correlated to delivery accuracy and characteristics in terms of number of MU, dynamic window width and agreement between calculation and measurement (expressed as percentage of field area with a γ > 1 (%FA)) when comparing calculated vs. delivered modulated dose maps. Different resolutions of the calculation grid and different photon dose algorithms (pencil beam and anisotropic analytical algorithm) were used for the investigations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: i) MI can be used as a reliable parameter to test different approaches/algorithms to smooth fluences implemented in a TPS, and to identify the preferable default values for the smoothing parameters if appropriate tools are implemented; ii) a MI threshold set at MI < 19 could ensure that the planned beams are safely and accurately delivered within stringent quality criteria; iii) a reduction in fluence complexity is strictly correlated to a corresponding reduction in MUs, as well as to a decrease of the average sliding window width (for dynamic IMRT delivery); iv) a smoother fluence results in a reduction of dose in the healthy tissue with a potentially relevant clinical benefit; v) increasing the smoothing parameter s, MI decreases with %FA: fluence complexity has a significant impact on the accuracy of delivery and the agreement between calculation and measurements improves with the advanced algorithms.
format Text
id pubmed-2234418
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-22344182008-02-08 What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT Giorgia, Nicolini Antonella, Fogliata Eugenio, Vanetti Alessandro, Clivio Filippo, Ammazzalorso Luca, Cozzi Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: The study summarised in this report aimed to investigate the interplay between fluence complexity, dose calculation algorithms, dose calculation spatial resolution and delivery characteristics (monitor units, effective field width and dose delivery against dose prediction agreement) was investigated. A sample set of complex planning cases was selected and tested using a commercial treatment planning system capable of inverse optimisation and equipped with tools to tune fluence smoothness. METHODS: A set of increasingly smoothed fluence patterns was correlated to a generalised expression of the Modulation Index (MI) concept, in nature independent from the specific planning system used that could therefore be recommended as a predictor to score fluence "quality" at a very early stage of the IMRT QA process. Fluence complexity was also correlated to delivery accuracy and characteristics in terms of number of MU, dynamic window width and agreement between calculation and measurement (expressed as percentage of field area with a γ > 1 (%FA)) when comparing calculated vs. delivered modulated dose maps. Different resolutions of the calculation grid and different photon dose algorithms (pencil beam and anisotropic analytical algorithm) were used for the investigations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: i) MI can be used as a reliable parameter to test different approaches/algorithms to smooth fluences implemented in a TPS, and to identify the preferable default values for the smoothing parameters if appropriate tools are implemented; ii) a MI threshold set at MI < 19 could ensure that the planned beams are safely and accurately delivered within stringent quality criteria; iii) a reduction in fluence complexity is strictly correlated to a corresponding reduction in MUs, as well as to a decrease of the average sliding window width (for dynamic IMRT delivery); iv) a smoother fluence results in a reduction of dose in the healthy tissue with a potentially relevant clinical benefit; v) increasing the smoothing parameter s, MI decreases with %FA: fluence complexity has a significant impact on the accuracy of delivery and the agreement between calculation and measurements improves with the advanced algorithms. BioMed Central 2007-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC2234418/ /pubmed/18036217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-2-42 Text en Copyright © 2007 Giorgia et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Giorgia, Nicolini
Antonella, Fogliata
Eugenio, Vanetti
Alessandro, Clivio
Filippo, Ammazzalorso
Luca, Cozzi
What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT
title What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT
title_full What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT
title_fullStr What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT
title_full_unstemmed What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT
title_short What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT
title_sort what is an acceptably smoothed fluence? dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window imrt
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2234418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18036217
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-2-42
work_keys_str_mv AT giorgianicolini whatisanacceptablysmoothedfluencedosimetricanddeliveryconsiderationsfordynamicslidingwindowimrt
AT antonellafogliata whatisanacceptablysmoothedfluencedosimetricanddeliveryconsiderationsfordynamicslidingwindowimrt
AT eugeniovanetti whatisanacceptablysmoothedfluencedosimetricanddeliveryconsiderationsfordynamicslidingwindowimrt
AT alessandroclivio whatisanacceptablysmoothedfluencedosimetricanddeliveryconsiderationsfordynamicslidingwindowimrt
AT filippoammazzalorso whatisanacceptablysmoothedfluencedosimetricanddeliveryconsiderationsfordynamicslidingwindowimrt
AT lucacozzi whatisanacceptablysmoothedfluencedosimetricanddeliveryconsiderationsfordynamicslidingwindowimrt