Display options
Cite
Persoon L, Nijsten S, Podesta M, et al. SU-E-J-51: Interfractional Trend Analysis of Dose Discrepancies Based on 2D Portal Dosimetry. Med Phys. 2012;39(6):3664doi: 10.1118/1.4734886.
Persoon, L., Nijsten, S., Podesta, M., Snaith, J., van Elmpt, W., & Verhaegen, F. (2012). SU-E-J-51: Interfractional Trend Analysis of Dose Discrepancies Based on 2D Portal Dosimetry. Medical physics, 39(6), 3664. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4734886
Persoon, Lcgg, et al. "SU-E-J-51: Interfractional Trend Analysis of Dose Discrepancies Based on 2D Portal Dosimetry." Medical physics vol. 39,6 (2012): 3664. doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4734886
Persoon L, Nijsten S, Podesta M, Snaith J, van Elmpt W, Verhaegen F. SU-E-J-51: Interfractional Trend Analysis of Dose Discrepancies Based on 2D Portal Dosimetry. Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6):3664. doi: 10.1118/1.4734886. PMID: 28517595.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6):3664. doi: 10.1118/1.4734886.

SU-E-J-51: Interfractional Trend Analysis of Dose Discrepancies Based on 2D Portal Dosimetry.

Medical physics

Lcgg Persoon, Smjjg Nijsten, M Podesta, Jad Snaith, Wjc van Elmpt, F Verhaegen

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  2. Radiation Dosimetry Group, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex TW110LW, UK.
  3. Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montréal, Qubéc, Canada.

PMID: 28517595 DOI: 10.1118/1.4734886

Abstract

PURPOSE: During a radiotherapy treatment course the dose delivery can be influenced by a number of factors, e.g. anatomical changes over time. Thiscan Result in discrepancies between planned and delivered dose. The electronic portal imaging device has been demonstrated to be valuable fortransit dosimetry verification. The aim of this study is to investigate theinformation that can be derived from 2D transit portal dosimetry by examining interfractional dose changes over a treatment course.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: To create a trend overview of the interfractional changes intransit dose, the predicted portal dose for the different beams is compared to a measured portal dose using a ?

EVALUATION: For each beam of the delivered fraction information is extracted from the ? images to differentiatesystematic from random dose delivery errors. From the systematic dose errors of a fraction for different projected contours, derived from the treatment planning contours several metrics are extracted like percentage pixels with ? exceeding unity. Finally the extracted metrics from each contour and beam are weighted with beam weight and the average andstandard deviation are calculated, resulting in a fraction Result. For this study, we analyzed 6 lung cancer patients and 20 prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS: In some prostate cases the rectal filling was causing the dose delivery problems. For the lung cancer patients, anatomy changes from the diminishing atelectasis caused a transit dose difference and adaptations to the plan were applied.

CONCLUSION: We have shown that from interfractional trend overview valuable information can be derived. However, to use this for adaptive radiotherapy, 2D transit dose differences with this methodshould be correlated with the 3D delivered dose, to define decision criteria.By optimizing these decision criteria it should be possible to prevent eitherover or under dosage of the tumor or OARs.

© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Keywords: Anatomy; Cancer; Dosimetry; Image guided radiation therapy; Lungs; Materials modification; Medical imaging; Medical treatment planning; Radiation therapy

Publication Types