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 43 条
  • [1] *ADAC LAB, 2001, ADAC PINNACLE3 PHYS
  • [2] The impact of electron transport on the accuracy of computed dose
    Arnfield, MR
    Siantar, CH
    Siebers, J
    Garmon, P
    Cox, L
    Mohan, R
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2000, 27 (06) : 1266 - 1274
  • [3] IMRT head and neck treatment planning with a commercially available Monte Carlo based planning system
    Boudreau, C
    Heath, E
    Seuntjens, J
    Ballivy, O
    Parker, W
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2005, 50 (05) : 879 - 890
  • [4] Cozzi Luca, 2002, Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, V2, P297, DOI 10.1586/14737140.2.3.297
  • [5] Clinical comparison of head and neck and prostate IMRT plans using absorbed dose to medium and absorbed dose to water
    Dogan, N.
    Siebers, J. V.
    Keall, P. J.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2006, 51 (19) : 4967 - 4980
  • [6] Improving IMRT dose accuracy via deliverable Monte Carlo optimization for the treatment of head and neck cancer patients
    Dogan, Nesrin
    Siebers, Jeffery V.
    Keall, Paul J.
    Lerma, Fritz
    Wu, Yan
    Fatyga, Mirek
    Williamson, Jeffrey F.
    Schmidt-Ullrich, Rupert K.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (11) : 4033 - 4043
  • [7] Eisbruch A, 1999, Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg, V53, P271
  • [8] A practical Monte Carlo MU verification tool for IMRT quality assurance
    Fan, J.
    Li, J.
    Chen, L.
    Stathakis, S.
    Luo, W.
    Du Plessis, F.
    Xiong, W.
    Yang, J.
    Ma, C. -M
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2006, 51 (10) : 2503 - 2515
  • [9] Dose verification of an IMRT treatment planning system with the BEAM EGS4-based Monte Carlo code
    Francescon, P
    Cora, S
    Chiovati, P
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (02) : 144 - 157
  • [10] A software toes for the quantitative evaluation of 3D dose calculation algorithms
    Harms, WB
    Low, DA
    Wong, JW
    Purdy, JA
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (10) : 1830 - 1836