Cargando…

Three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for IMRT

Dose verifications for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are generally performed once before treatment. A 39‐fraction treatment course for prostate cancer delivers a dose prescription of 78 Gy in eight weeks. Any changes in multileaf collimator leaf position over the treatment course may...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sumida, Iori, Yamaguchi, Hajime, Kizaki, Hisao, Aboshi, Keiko, Yamada, Yuji, Yoshioka, Yasuo, Ogawa, Kazuhiko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4874
_version_ 1783283005552328704
author Sumida, Iori
Yamaguchi, Hajime
Kizaki, Hisao
Aboshi, Keiko
Yamada, Yuji
Yoshioka, Yasuo
Ogawa, Kazuhiko
author_facet Sumida, Iori
Yamaguchi, Hajime
Kizaki, Hisao
Aboshi, Keiko
Yamada, Yuji
Yoshioka, Yasuo
Ogawa, Kazuhiko
author_sort Sumida, Iori
collection PubMed
description Dose verifications for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are generally performed once before treatment. A 39‐fraction treatment course for prostate cancer delivers a dose prescription of 78 Gy in eight weeks. Any changes in multileaf collimator leaf position over the treatment course may affect the dosimetry. To evaluate the magnitude of deviations from the predicted dose over an entire treatment course with MLC leaf calibrations performed every two weeks, we tracked weekly changes in relative dose error distributions measured with two‐dimensional (2D) beam‐by‐beam analysis. We compared the dosimetric results from 20 consecutive patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) tests using beam‐by‐beam analysis and a 2D diode detector array to the dose plans calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). We added back the resulting relative dose error measured weekly into the original dose grid for each beam. To validate the prediction method, the predicted doses and dose distributions were compared to the measurements using an ionization chamber and film. The predicted doses were in good agreement, within 2% of the measured doses, and the predicted dose distributions also presented good agreement with the measured distributions. Dose verification results measured once as a pretreatment QA test were not completely stable, as results of weekly beam‐by‐beam analysis showed some variation. Because dosimetric errors throughout the treatment course were averaged, the overall dosimetric impact to patients was small. PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk, 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5711089
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57110892018-04-02 Three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for IMRT Sumida, Iori Yamaguchi, Hajime Kizaki, Hisao Aboshi, Keiko Yamada, Yuji Yoshioka, Yasuo Ogawa, Kazuhiko J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Dose verifications for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are generally performed once before treatment. A 39‐fraction treatment course for prostate cancer delivers a dose prescription of 78 Gy in eight weeks. Any changes in multileaf collimator leaf position over the treatment course may affect the dosimetry. To evaluate the magnitude of deviations from the predicted dose over an entire treatment course with MLC leaf calibrations performed every two weeks, we tracked weekly changes in relative dose error distributions measured with two‐dimensional (2D) beam‐by‐beam analysis. We compared the dosimetric results from 20 consecutive patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) tests using beam‐by‐beam analysis and a 2D diode detector array to the dose plans calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). We added back the resulting relative dose error measured weekly into the original dose grid for each beam. To validate the prediction method, the predicted doses and dose distributions were compared to the measurements using an ionization chamber and film. The predicted doses were in good agreement, within 2% of the measured doses, and the predicted dose distributions also presented good agreement with the measured distributions. Dose verification results measured once as a pretreatment QA test were not completely stable, as results of weekly beam‐by‐beam analysis showed some variation. Because dosimetric errors throughout the treatment course were averaged, the overall dosimetric impact to patients was small. PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk, 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5711089/ /pubmed/25207574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4874 Text en © 2014 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Sumida, Iori
Yamaguchi, Hajime
Kizaki, Hisao
Aboshi, Keiko
Yamada, Yuji
Yoshioka, Yasuo
Ogawa, Kazuhiko
Three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for IMRT
title Three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for IMRT
title_full Three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for IMRT
title_fullStr Three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for IMRT
title_full_unstemmed Three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for IMRT
title_short Three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for IMRT
title_sort three‐dimensional dose prediction based on two‐dimensional verification measurements for imrt
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4874
work_keys_str_mv AT sumidaiori threedimensionaldosepredictionbasedontwodimensionalverificationmeasurementsforimrt
AT yamaguchihajime threedimensionaldosepredictionbasedontwodimensionalverificationmeasurementsforimrt
AT kizakihisao threedimensionaldosepredictionbasedontwodimensionalverificationmeasurementsforimrt
AT aboshikeiko threedimensionaldosepredictionbasedontwodimensionalverificationmeasurementsforimrt
AT yamadayuji threedimensionaldosepredictionbasedontwodimensionalverificationmeasurementsforimrt
AT yoshiokayasuo threedimensionaldosepredictionbasedontwodimensionalverificationmeasurementsforimrt
AT ogawakazuhiko threedimensionaldosepredictionbasedontwodimensionalverificationmeasurementsforimrt