Dataset Information

Motion-compensated estimation of delivered dose during external beam radiation therapy: implementation in Philips' Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system.

ABSTRACT: Recent research efforts investigating dose escalation techniques for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have demonstrated great benefit when high-dose hypofractionated treatment schemes are implemented. The use of these paradigms emphasizes the importance of smaller treatment margins to avoid high dose to surrounding normal tissue or organs at risk (OARs). However, tighter margins may lead to underdosage of the target due to the presence of organ motion. It is important to characterize organ motion and possibly account for it during treatment delivery. The need for real-time localization of dynamic targets has encouraged the use and development of more continuous motion monitoring systems such as kilo-voltage/fluoroscopic imaging, electromagnetic tracking, and optical monitoring systems.This paper presents the implementation of an algorithm to quantify translational and rotational interfractional and intrafractional prostate motion and compute the dosimetric effects of these motion patterns. The estimated delivered dose is compared with the static plan dose to evaluate the success of delivering the plan in the presence of prostate motion. The method is implemented on a commercial treatment planning system (Pinnacle(3), Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Philips Healthcare) and is termed delivered dose investigational tool (DiDIT). The DiDIT implementation in Pinnacle(3) is validated by comparisons with previously published results. Finally, different workflows are discussed with respect to the potential use of this tool in clinical treatment planning.The DiDIT dose estimation process took approximately 5-20 min (depending on the number of fractions analyzed) on a Pinnacle(3) 9.100 research version running on a Dell M90 system (Dell, Inc., Round Rock, TX, USA) equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor (Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The DiDIT implementation in Pinnacle(3) was found to be in agreement with previously published results, on the basis of the percent dose difference (PDD). This metric was also utilized to compare plan dose versus delivered dose, for prostate targets in three clinically acceptable treatment plans.This paper presents results from the implementation of an algorithm on a commercially available treatment planning system that quantifies the dosimetric effects of interfractional and intrafractional motion in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer. The implementation of this algorithm within a commercial treatment planning system such as Pinnacle(3) enables easy deployment in the existing clinical workflow. The results of the PDD tests validate the implementation of the DiDIT algorithm in Pinnacle(3), in comparison with previously published results.

SUBMITTER: Bharat S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3261057 | biostudies-other | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsThe prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.ResultsFive-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.ConclusionsMen treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.

Project description:To compare the outcomes of localized prostate cancer treatment with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), we examined 924 patients treated with HDR-BT + external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 500 patients treated with LDR-BT ± EBRT using multi-institutional retrospective data. The HDR-BT treated advanced disease with more hormonal therapy than LDR-BT. To reduce background selection bias, we performed inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis using propensity scores and excluded patients with T3b-4 disease/ initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels > 50 ng/ml. The actuarial 5-year biochemical control rates (5y-bNED) were 96.3% and 95.7% in the HDR-BT and LDR-BT groups, respectively. The corresponding values were 100% and 96.5% in the low-risk group; 97.4% and 97.1% in the intermediate-risk group (97.2% and 97% in the higher titer group and 97.5% and 94.6% in the lower titer group, respectively); and 95.7% and 94.9% in the selected high-risk group, respectively. IPTW correction indicated no significant difference among the groups. The 5y-bNED in the HDR-BT + EBRT, LDR-BT + EBRT, and LDR-BT alone groups were 96.3%, 95.5%, and 97%, respectively (P = 0.3011). The corresponding values were 97.4%, 94.7%, and 96.6% (P = 0.1004) in the intermediate-risk group (97.5%, 100%, and 94.5% in the lower titer group [P = 0.122] and 97.2%, 96.2%, and 100% [P = 0.664] in the higher titer group, respectively) and 95.7%, 95.5%, and 100% (P = 0.859) in the high-risk group, respectively. The HDR-BT group showed a lower incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities; the incidence of other early and late grade ≥ 2 toxicities were similar between the HDR-BT and LDR-BT groups. Acute genitourinary toxicity predicted the occurrence of late genitourinary toxicity. EBRT increased the risk of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. HDR-BT + EBRT is a good alternative to LDR-BT ± EBRT for low-, intermediate-, and selected high-risk patients.

Project description:PurposeBeam angle optimization is a critical issue for modern radiotherapy (RT) and is a challenging task, especially for large body sizes and noncoplanar designs. Noncoplanar RT techniques may have dosimetric advantages but increase the risk of mechanical collision. We propose a software solution to accurately predict colliding/noncolliding configurations for coplanar and noncoplanar beams.Materials and methodsIndividualized software models for two different linear accelerators were built to simulate noncolliding gantry orientations for phantom/patient subjects. The sizes and shapes of the accelerators were delineated based on their manuals and on-site measurements. The external surfaces of the subjects were automatically contoured based on computed tomography (CT) simulations. An Alderson Radiation Therapy phantom was used to predict the accuracy of spatial collision prediction by the software. A gantry collision problem encountered by one patient during initial setup was also used to test the validity of the software. Results: In the comparison between the software estimates and on-site measurements, the noncoplanar collision angles were all predicted within a 5-degree difference in gantry position. The confusion matrix was calculated for each of the two empty accelerator models, and the accuracies were 98.7% and 97.3%. The true positive rates were 97.7% and 96.9%, while the true negative rates were 99.8% and 97.9%, respectively. For the phantom study, the collision angles were predicted within a 5-degree difference. The software successfully predicted the collision problem encountered by the breast cancer patient in the initial setup position and generated shifted coordinates that were validated to correspond to a noncolliding geometry.ConclusionThe developed software effectively and accurately predicted collisions for accelerator-only, phantom, and patient setups. This software may help prevent collisions and expand the range of spatially applicable beam angles.

Dataset Information

Motion-compensated estimation of delivered dose during external beam radiation therapy: implementation in Philips' Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets