Cargando…

Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT

With intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), it is important that the inverse planning process yields the most appropriate dose distribution for the patient and that the delivered dose then corresponds to the planned dose. This paper presents methods by which the inverse planning and delivery of se...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bedford, James L., Childs, Peter J., Warrington, Alan P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5723460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v5i2.1975
_version_ 1783285216656228352
author Bedford, James L.
Childs, Peter J.
Warrington, Alan P.
author_facet Bedford, James L.
Childs, Peter J.
Warrington, Alan P.
author_sort Bedford, James L.
collection PubMed
description With intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), it is important that the inverse planning process yields the most appropriate dose distribution for the patient and that the delivered dose then corresponds to the planned dose. This paper presents methods by which the inverse planning and delivery of segmental (step‐and‐shoot) IMRT can be verified, and gives results for a typical treatment planning system (Pinnacle(3) v6.2b, Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Milpitas, CA). Inverse planning was assessed by observing the reduction in objective function as fields were successively added to three‐field prostate, esophagus, and thyroid plans. The ability of the treatment planning system to calculate dose for a segmented field was examined by creating a stepped field with five successively narrowing segments. The complete planning process was then investigated by using two orthogonal IMRT fields to create a homogeneous dose distribution in a cubic water phantom. Finally, a clinical situation was simulated by creating a five‐field segmental IMRT plan for a lung target in an anthropomorphic phantom. A conformal plan was also compared for context. Addition of fields to inverse plans generally resulted in a reduction of objective function, indicating consistency of inverse planning solutions. Planned dose for fields with stepped intensity agreed with ionization chamber measurements to within 5%. For orthogonal fields, planned dose distributions agreed well with dose measured using film and agreed with ionization chamber measurements to within 3%. For the anthropomorphic phantom, the standard deviation of difference between planned and measured dose was 4%. Although no consensus has yet been reached on what constitutes an acceptable IMRT plan, these results indicate that step‐and‐shoot IMRT can be planned and delivered using the system described with comparable accuracy to a standard conformal treatment. PACS numbers: 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Kn, 87.53.Mr, 87.53.Tf, 87.53.Xd
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5723460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57234602018-04-02 Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT Bedford, James L. Childs, Peter J. Warrington, Alan P. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics With intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), it is important that the inverse planning process yields the most appropriate dose distribution for the patient and that the delivered dose then corresponds to the planned dose. This paper presents methods by which the inverse planning and delivery of segmental (step‐and‐shoot) IMRT can be verified, and gives results for a typical treatment planning system (Pinnacle(3) v6.2b, Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Milpitas, CA). Inverse planning was assessed by observing the reduction in objective function as fields were successively added to three‐field prostate, esophagus, and thyroid plans. The ability of the treatment planning system to calculate dose for a segmented field was examined by creating a stepped field with five successively narrowing segments. The complete planning process was then investigated by using two orthogonal IMRT fields to create a homogeneous dose distribution in a cubic water phantom. Finally, a clinical situation was simulated by creating a five‐field segmental IMRT plan for a lung target in an anthropomorphic phantom. A conformal plan was also compared for context. Addition of fields to inverse plans generally resulted in a reduction of objective function, indicating consistency of inverse planning solutions. Planned dose for fields with stepped intensity agreed with ionization chamber measurements to within 5%. For orthogonal fields, planned dose distributions agreed well with dose measured using film and agreed with ionization chamber measurements to within 3%. For the anthropomorphic phantom, the standard deviation of difference between planned and measured dose was 4%. Although no consensus has yet been reached on what constitutes an acceptable IMRT plan, these results indicate that step‐and‐shoot IMRT can be planned and delivered using the system described with comparable accuracy to a standard conformal treatment. PACS numbers: 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Kn, 87.53.Mr, 87.53.Tf, 87.53.Xd John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2004-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5723460/ /pubmed/15738908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v5i2.1975 Text en © 2004 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
Bedford, James L.
Childs, Peter J.
Warrington, Alan P.
Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT
title Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT
title_full Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT
title_fullStr Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT
title_full_unstemmed Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT
title_short Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT
title_sort verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental imrt
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5723460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v5i2.1975
work_keys_str_mv AT bedfordjamesl verificationofinverseplanningandtreatmentdeliveryforsegmentalimrt
AT childspeterj verificationofinverseplanningandtreatmentdeliveryforsegmentalimrt
AT warringtonalanp verificationofinverseplanningandtreatmentdeliveryforsegmentalimrt