980 resultados para Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
Resumo:
To make a comprehensive evaluation of organ-specific out-of-field doses using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for different breast cancer irradiation techniques and to compare results with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). Three breast radiotherapy techniques using 6MV tangential photon beams were compared: (a) 2DRT (open rectangular fields), (b) 3DCRT (conformal wedged fields), and (c) hybrid IMRT (open conformal+modulated fields). Over 35 organs were contoured in a whole-body CT scan and organ-specific dose distributions were determined with MC and the TPS. Large differences in out-of-field doses were observed between MC and TPS calculations, even for organs close to the target volume such as the heart, the lungs and the contralateral breast (up to 70% difference). MC simulations showed that a large fraction of the out-of-field dose comes from the out-of-field head scatter fluence (>40%) which is not adequately modeled by the TPS. Based on MC simulations, the 3DCRT technique using external wedges yielded significantly higher doses (up to a factor 4-5 in the pelvis) than the 2DRT and the hybrid IMRT techniques which yielded similar out-of-field doses. In sharp contrast to popular belief, the IMRT technique investigated here does not increase the out-of-field dose compared to conventional techniques and may offer the most optimal plan. The 3DCRT technique with external wedges yields the largest out-of-field doses. For accurate out-of-field dose assessment, a commercial TPS should not be used, even for organs near the target volume (contralateral breast, lungs, heart).
Resumo:
PURPOSE: To determine whether a 3-mm isotropic target margin adequately covers the prostate and seminal vesicles (SVs) during administration of an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment fraction, assuming that daily image-guided setup is performed just before each fraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-room computed tomographic (CT) scans were acquired immediately before and after a daily treatment fraction in 46 patients with prostate cancer. An eight-field IMRT plan was designed using the pre-fraction CT with a 3-mm margin and subsequently recalculated on the post-fraction CT. For convenience of comparison, dose plans were scaled to full course of treatment (75.6 Gy). Dose coverage was assessed on the post-treatment CT image set. RESULTS: During one treatment fraction (21.4+/-5.5 min), there were reductions in the volumes of the prostate and SVs receiving the prescribed dose (median reduction 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively, p<0.001) and in the minimum dose to 0.1 cm(3) of their volumes (median reduction 0.5 and 1.5 Gy, p<0.001). Of the 46 patients, three patients' prostates and eight patients' SVs did not maintain dose coverage above 70 Gy. Rectal filling correlated with decreased percentage-volume of SV receiving 75.6, 70, and 60 Gy (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-mm intrafractional margin was adequate for prostate dose coverage. However, a significant subset of patients lost SV dose coverage. The rectal volume change significantly affected SV dose coverage. For advanced-stage prostate cancers, we recommend to use larger margins or improve organ immobilization (such as with a rectal balloon) to ensure SV coverage.
Resumo:
Knowledge of the accuracy of dose calculations in intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the head and neck is essential for clinical confidence in these highly conformal treatments. High dose gradients are frequently placed very close to critical structures, such as the spinal cord, and good coverage of complex shaped nodal target volumes is important for long term-local control. A phantom study is presented comparing the performance of standard clinical pencil-beam and collapsed-cone dose algorithms to Monte Carlo calculation and three-dimensional gel dosimetry measurement. All calculations and measurements are normalized to the median dose in the primary planning target volume, making this a purely relative study. The phantom simulates tissue, air and bone for a typical neck section and is treated using an inverse-planned 5-field IMRT treatment, similar in character to clinically used class solutions. Results indicate that the pencil-beam algorithm fails to correctly model the relative dose distribution surrounding the air cavity, leading to an overestimate of the target coverage. The collapsed-cone and Monte Carlo results are very similar, indicating that the clinical collapsed-cone algorithm is perfectly sufficient for routine clinical use. The gel measurement shows generally good agreement with the collapsed-cone and Monte Carlo calculated dose, particularly in the spinal cord dose and nodal target coverage, thus giving greater confidence in the use of this class solution.
Resumo:
Purpose: The precise shape of the three-dimensional dose distributions created by intensity-modulated radiotherapy means that the verification of patient position and setup is crucial to the outcome of the treatment. In this paper, we investigate and compare the use of two different image calibration procedures that allow extraction of patient anatomy from measured electronic portal images of intensity-modulated treatment beams. Methods and Materials: Electronic portal images of the intensity-modulated treatment beam delivered using the dynamic multileaf collimator technique were acquired. The images were formed by measuring a series of frames or segments throughout the delivery of the beams. The frames were then summed to produce an integrated portal image of the delivered beam. Two different methods for calibrating the integrated image were investigated with the aim of removing the intensity modulations of the beam. The first involved a simple point-by-point division of the integrated image by a single calibration image of the intensity-modulated beam delivered to a homogeneous polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom. The second calibration method is known as the quadratic calibration method and required a series of calibration images of the intensity-modulated beam delivered to different thicknesses of homogeneous PMMA blocks. Measurements were made using two different detector systems: a Varian amorphous silicon flat-panel imager and a Theraview camera-based system. The methods were tested first using a contrast phantom before images were acquired of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment delivered to the prostate and pelvic nodes of cancer patients at the Royal Marsden Hospital. Results: The results indicate that the calibration methods can be used to remove the intensity modulations of the beam, making it possible to see the outlines of bony anatomy that could be used for patient position verification. This was shown for both posterior and lateral delivered fields. Conclusions: Very little difference between the two calibration methods was observed, so the simpler division method, requiring only the single extra calibration measurement and much simpler computation, was the favored method. This new method could provide a complementary tool to existing position verification methods, and it has the advantage that it is completely passive, requiring no further dose to the patient and using only the treatment fields.
Resumo:
Purpose: Electronic Portal Imaging Devices (EPIDs) are available with most linear accelerators (Amonuk, 2002), the current technology being amorphous silicon flat panel imagers. EPIDs are currently used routinely in patient positioning before radiotherapy treatments. There has been an increasing interest in using EPID technology tor dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatments (van Elmpt, 2008). A straightforward technique involves the EPID panel being used to measure the fluence exiting the patient during a treatment which is then compared to a prediction of the fluence based on the treatment plan. However, there are a number of significant limitations which exist in this Method: Resulting in a limited proliferation ot this technique in a clinical environment. In this paper, we aim to present a technique of simulating IMRT fields using Monte Carlo to predict the dose in an EPID which can then be compared to the measured dose in the EPID. Materials: Measurements were made using an iView GT flat panel a-SI EPfD mounted on an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The images from the EPID were acquired using the XIS software (Heimann Imaging Systems). Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the BEAMnrc and DOSXVZnrc user codes. The IMRT fieids to be delivered were taken from the treatment planning system in DICOMRT format and converted into BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc input files using an in-house application (Crowe, 2009). Additionally. all image processing and analysis was performed using another in-house application written using the Interactive Data Language (IDL) (In Visual Information Systems). Comparison between the measured and Monte Carlo EPID images was performed using a gamma analysis (Low, 1998) incorporating dose and distance to agreement criteria. Results: The fluence maps recorded by the EPID were found to provide good agreement between measured and simulated data. Figure 1 shows an example of measured and simulated IMRT dose images and profiles in the x and y directions. "A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions", Med Phys, 25(5) May 1998 S. Crowe, 1. Kairn, A. Fielding, "The Development of a Monte Carlo system to verify Radiotherapy treatment dose calculations", Radiotherapy & Oncology, Volume 92, Supplement 1, August 2009, Pages S71-S71.
Resumo:
Purpose Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments require more beam-on time and produce more linac head leakage to deliver similar doses to conventional, unmodulated, radiotherapy treatments. It is necessary to take this increased leakage into account when evaluating the results of radiation surveys around bunkers that are, or will be, used for IMRT. The recommended procedure of 15 applying a monitor-unit based workload correction factor to secondary barrier survey measurements, to account for this increased leakage when evaluating radiation survey measurements around IMRT bunkers, can lead to potentially-costly over estimation of the required barrier thickness. This study aims to provide initial guidance on the validity of reducing the value of the correction factor when applied to different radiation barriers (primary barriers, doors, maze walls and other walls) by 20 evaluating three different bunker designs. Methods Radiation survey measurements of primary, scattered and leakage radiation were obtained at each of five survey points around each of three different radiotherapy bunkers and the contribution of leakage to the total measured radiation dose at each point was evaluated. Measurements at each survey point were made with the linac gantry set to 12 equidistant positions from 0 to 330o, to 25 assess the effects of radiation beam direction on the results. Results For all three bunker designs, less than 0.5% of dose measured at and alongside the primary barriers, less than 25% of the dose measured outside the bunker doors and up to 100% of the dose measured outside other secondary barriers was found to be caused by linac head leakage. Conclusions Results of this study suggest that IMRT workload corrections are unnecessary, for 30 survey measurements made at and alongside primary barriers. Use of reduced IMRT workload correction factors is recommended when evaluating survey measurements around a bunker door, provided that a subset of the measurements used in this study are repeated for the bunker in question. Reduction of the correction factor for other secondary barrier survey measurements is not recommended unless the contribution from leakage is separetely evaluated.
Resumo:
Introduction This study examines and compares the dosimetric quality of radiotherapy treatment plans for prostate carcinoma across a cohort of 163 patients treated across 5 centres: 83 treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), 33 treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 47 treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods Treatment plan quality was evaluated in terms of target dose homogeneity and organ-at-risk sparing, through the use of a set of dose metrics. These included the mean, maximum and minimum doses; the homogeneity and conformity indices for the target volumes; and a selection of dose coverage values that were relevant to each organ-at-risk. Statistical significance was evaluated using two-tailed Welch’s T-tests. The Monte Carlo DICOM ToolKit software was adapted to permit the evaluation of dose metrics from DICOM data exported from a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system. Results The 3DCRT treatment plans offered greater planning target volume dose homogeneity than the other two treatment modalities. The IMRT and VMAT plans offered greater dose reduction in the organs-at-risk: with increased compliance with recommended organ-at-risk dose constraints, compared to conventional 3DCRT treatments. When compared to each other, IMRT and VMAT did not provide significantly different treatment plan quality for like-sized tumour volumes. Conclusions This study indicates that IMRT and VMAT have provided similar dosimetric quality, which is superior to the dosimetric quality achieved with 3DCRT.
Resumo:
The potential of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to improve the therapeutic ratio in prostate cancer by dose escalation of intraprostatic tumour nodules (IPTNs) was investigated using a simultaneous integrated boost technique. The prostate and organs-at-risk were outlined on CT images from six prostate cancer patients. Positions of IPTNs were transferred onto the CT images from prostate maps derived from sequential large block sections of whole prostatectomy specimens. Inverse planned IMRT dose distributions were created to irradiate the prostate to 70 Gy and all the IPTNs to 90 Gy. A second plan was produced to escalate only the dominant IPTN (DIPTN) to 90 Gy, mimicking current imaging techniques. These plans were compared with homogeneous prostate irradiation to 70 Gy using dose–volume histograms, tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the rectum. The mean dose to IPTNs was increased from 69.8 Gy to 89.1 Gy if all the IPTNs were dose escalated (p=0.0003). This corresponded to a mean increase in TCP of 8.7–31.2% depending on the /ß ratio of prostate cancer (p
Resumo:
The 2-year survival rate after conventional radiotherapy for carcinoma of the oesophagus is around 10–20% [8]. Concomitant chemoradiation schedules have produced survival figures of 25–30% at 5 years, and this is now considered standard treatment [1]. Conformal radiotherapy techniques offer the potential to deliver higher doses of radiation to oesophageal tumours [5], and this may improve local tumour control. However, concerns regarding late normal tissue damage to the lung parenchyma and spinal cord remain a concern. Intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT) allows complex dose distributions to be produced, and can reduce the dose to radiosensitive organs close to the tumour [2]. The present study was designed to investigate the impact of beam intensity modulation on treatment planning for carcinoma of the oesophagus, by comparing a standard three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) technique to an IMRT technique using the same number and orientation of treatment fields.
Resumo:
Background and purpose: To investigate the potential of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to reduce lung irradiation in the treatment of oesophageal carcinoma with radical radiotherapy.Materials and methods: A treatment planning study was performed to compare two-phase conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) with IMRT in five patients. The CFRT plans consisted of anterior, posterior and bilateral posterior oblique fields, while the IMRT plans consisted of either nine equispaced fields (9F), or four fields (4F) with orientations equal to the CFRT plans. IMRT plans with seven, five or three equispaced fields were also investigated in one patient. Treatment plans were compared using dose-volume histograms and normal tissue complication probabilities.Results: The 9F IMRT plan was unable to improve on the homogeneity of dose to the planning target volume (PTV), compared with the CFRT plan (dose range, 16.9+/-4.5 (1 SD) vs. 12.4+/-3.9%; P=0.06). Similarly, the 9F IMRT plan was unable to reduce the mean lung dose (11.7+/-3.2 vs. 11.0+/-2.9 Gy; P=0.2). Similar results were obtained for seven, five and three equispaced fields in the single patient studied. The 4F IMRT plan provided comparable PTV dose homogeneity with the CFRT plan (11.8+/-3.3 vs. 12.4+/-3.9%; P=0.6), with reduced mean lung dose (9.5+/-2.3 vs 11.0+/-2.9 Gy; P=0.001).Conclusions: IMRT using nine equispaced fields provided no improvement over CFRT. This was because the larger number of fields in the IMRT plan distributed a low dose over the entire lung. In contrast, IMRT using four fields equal to the CFRT fields offered an improvement in lung sparing. Thus, IMRT with a few carefully chosen field directions may lead to a modest reduction in pneumonitis, or allow tumour dose escalation within the currently accepted lung toxicity.
Resumo:
To assess 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques to see whether doses to critical structures could be reduced while maintaining planning target volume (PTV) coverage in patients receiving conventional radiotherapy (RT) for carcinoma of the maxillary sinus because of the risk of radiation-induced complications, particularly visual loss. Six patients who had recently received conventional RT for carcinoma of the maxillary sinus were studied. Conventional RT, 3D-CRT, and step-and-shoot IMRT plans were prepared using the same 2-field arrangement. The effect of reducing the number of segments in the IMRT beams was investigated. 3D-CRT and IMRT reduced the brain and ipsilateral parotid gland doses compared with the conventional plans. IMRT reduced doses to both optic nerves; for the contralateral optic nerve, 15-segment IMRT plans delivered an average maximal dose of 56.4 Gy (range 53.9–59.3) compared with 65.7 Gy (range 65.3–65.9) and 64.2 Gy (range 61.4–65.6) for conventional RT and 3D-CRT, respectively. IMRT also gave improved PTV homogeneity and improved coverage, with an average of 8.5% (range 7.0–11.7%) of the volume receiving