Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J A Purdy

Publications and source records attributed to J A Purdy.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

A change in treatment process with a modern record and verify system.

PURPOSE: With the introduction of new treatment devices, such as a multileaf collimator (MLC) and dynamic wedge (DW), therapists have an increased responsibility to ensure correct treatment. Simultaneously, three-dimensional treatment planning (3DTP) has led to an increased number of portals and table movements. To counteract this challenge and maintain efficiency, a comprehensive record and verify (R&V) system is mandatory. We evaluated a commercial system (Varis) for reliability, ease of use, efficiency, and integration with our planning systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Some key elements of the Varis system are: integration of MLC and DW; auto setup for MLC, jaw, collimator, gantry, and limited table parameters; direct download of simulation beam data; and a regimented field scheduling system that prescribes all beam data for particular fractions. Evaluation of the system was driven by treatment time analysis, error rates, and an increased workload. These issues were governed by how we disseminated duties and how the system accommodated or changed our processes. RESULTS: Most data entry is performed by our dosimetry staff. Data can be downloaded from the simulator, but more patients now move from CT simulation and/or 3DTP to the treatment machine. Varis does not link to these systems. The physics staff confirms all entries to correct data entry errors. The workload for dosimetrists increased by an average of 8 minutes/patient entry; physics time increased by 7 minutes/patient entry; the weekly electronic chart check takes approximately 3 minutes/patient. Therapists who used Varis efficiently showed a slight decrease in treatment times, attributed to MLC integration and auto-setup. Some therapists experienced a decrease in efficiency, because of unfamiliarity and excess intervention. On a positive note, notable events have decreased by a factor of 10 since full initiation. Unfortunately, the remaining errors are often the result of a therapist relying on incorrect electronic information. CONCLUSION: The Varis R&V system has had an impact on our clinic's process and efficiency. Checking of all beam data and related field scheduling have helped reduce errors and misconceptions. We feel a dual-energy machine can be operated with two experienced therapists and an up-to-date R&V system more accurately and efficiently than with three therapists working without an integrated R&V. We anticipate future Varis releases will further promote efficiency and accuracy.

Computer Communication Networks↗
PubMed1998

Quality assurance of serial tomotherapy for head and neck patient treatments.

PURPOSE: A commercial serial tomotherapy intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning (Peacock, NOMOS Corp., Sewickley, PA) and delivery system is in clinical use. The dose distributions are highly conformal, with large dose gradients often surrounding critical structures, and require accurate localization and dose delivery. Accelerator and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) procedures have been developed that address the localization, normalization, and delivery of the IMRT dose distributions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The dose distribution delivered by serial tomotherapy is highly sensitive to the accuracy of the longitudinal couch motion. There is also an unknown sensitivity of the dose distribution on the dynamic mutlileaf collimator alignment. QA procedures were implemented that assess these geometric parameters. Evaluations of patient positioning accuracy and stability were conducted by exposing portal films before (single exposure) and after (single or double exposure) treatments. The films were acquired with sequential exposures using the largest available fixed multileaf portal (3.36 x 20 cm2). Comparison was made against digitally reconstructed radiographs generated using independent software and appropriate beam geometries. The delivered dose was verified using homogeneous cubic phantoms. Radiographic film was used to determine the localization accuracy of the delivered isodose distributions, and ionization chambers and thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) chips were used to verify absolute dose at selected points. Ionization chamber measurements were confined to the target dose regions and TLD measurements were obtained throughout the irradiated volumes. Because many more TLD measurements were made, a statistical evaluation of the measured-to-calculated dose ratio was possible. RESULTS: The accelerator QA techniques provided adequate monitoring of the geometric patient movement and dynamic multileaf collimator alignment and positional stability. The absolute delivered dose as measured with the ionization chamber varied from 0.94 to 0.98. Based on these measurements, the delivered monitor units for both subsequent QA measurements and patient treatments were adjusted by the ratio of measured to calculated dose. TLD measurements showed agreement, on average, with the ionization chamber measurements. The distribution of TLD measurements in the high-dose regions indicated that measured doses agreed within 4.2% standard deviation of the calculated doses. In the low-dose regions, the measured doses were on average 5% greater than the calculated doses, due to a lack of leakage dose in the dose calculation algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The QA system provided adequate determination of the geometric and dosimetric quantities involved in the use of IMRT for the head and neck. Ionization chamber and TLD measurements provided accurate determination of the absolute delivered dose throughout target volumes and critical structures, and radiographic film yielded precise dose distribution localization verification. Portal film acquisition and subsequent portal film analysis using 3.36 x 20 cm2 portals proved useful in the evaluation of patient immobilization quality. Adequate bony landmarks were imaged when carefully selected portals were used.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1998

A solid water pelvic and prostate phantom for imaging, volume rendering, treatment planning, and dosimetry for an RTOG multi-institutional, 3-D dose escalation study. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: With increased interest in 3-D conformal radiation therapy and dose escalation, it is necessary to provide advanced techniques to assure quality in treatment delivery. Multi-institutional trials for these newer treatment techniques require methods of verifying the consistency of treatments between the participating institutions. For this reason, a phantom was designed to address the quality and consistency of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 3-D prostate treatment protocol. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A solid water pelvic and prostate phantom for imaging, volume rendering, treatment planning, and dosimetry applications for performing comprehensive quality assurance has been designed and fabricated. Its configuration was based upon CT slices obtained from a patient study. Individual slices were machined with corresponding contours of the prostate, bladder, rectum, and the left and right femurs. Most of the phantom is made of solid water (Gammex/RMI, Middleton, WI), while the femurs are made of bone-equivalent material. The CT numbers from patient images were used to adjust the solid water composition within the organ volumes, providing image contrast from the remainder of the phantom. Cylindrical insertion grooves are machined in the phantom to allow placement of ionization chambers and thermal luminal dosimeters (TLDs) for dosimetry applications. During imaging, the cavities are filled with rods fabricated from solid water material. RESULTS: The phantom is being used to evaluate the consistency of a range of processes in radiation therapy simulation, planning, and delivery of 3-D-based treatments for prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: The ultimate study objective is to use the phantom to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of treatments delivered by institutions participating in national collaborative clinical trials involving 3-D conformal dose escalation.

Humans↗
PubMed1998

A critical evaluation of the planning target volume for 3-D conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine an adequate planning target volume (PTV) margin for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) of prostate cancer, the uncertainties in the internal positions of the prostate and seminal vesicles (SV) and in the treatment setups were measured. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Weekly computed tomography (CT) scans of the pelvis (n=51) and daily electronic portal images (n=1630) were reviewed for eight patients who received seven-field 3D CRT for prostate cancer. The CT scans were registered in three dimensions to the original planning CT scan using commercially available software to measure the center-of volume (COV) motion of the prostate and SV. The daily portal images were registered to the corresponding simulation films to measure the setup displacements. The standard deviation (SD) of the internal organ motions was added to the SD of the setups in quadrature to determine the total uncertainty. Positive directions were left, anterior, and superior. Rotations necessary to register the CT scans and portal images were minimal and not further analyzed. RESULTS: The mean motion for the COV of the prostate+/-the SD was 0+/-0.9 mm in the left-right (LR), 0.5+/-2.6 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP), and 1.5+/-3.9 mm in the superior-inferior (SI) directions. The mean motion for the COV of the SV+/-the SD was 0.3+/-1.7 mm in the LR, 0.7+/-3.8 mm in the AP, and 0.9+/-3.5 mm in the SI directions. For all patients the mean isocenter displacement+/-the SD was 0+/-3.1 mm in the LR, 1.4+/-3.0 mm in the AP, and -0.4+/-2.1 mm in the SI directions. The total uncertainty for the prostate was 3.2 mm, 4.0 mm, and 4.4 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. For the SV, the total uncertainty was 3.5, 4.8, and 4.1 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PTV margins of 10 to 16 mm are required to encompass all (99%) possible positions of the prostate or SV during 3D CRT. PTV margins of 7 to 11 mm will encompass the measured uncertainties with a 95% probability. PTV margins of 5 mm may not adequately cover the intended volume.

Humans↗
PubMed1998

Radiation pneumonitis as a function of mean lung dose: an analysis of pooled data of 540 patients.

PURPOSE: To determine the relation between the incidence of radiation pneumonitis and the three-dimensional dose distribution in the lung. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In five institutions, the incidence of radiation pneumonitis was evaluated in 540 patients. The patients were divided into two groups: a Lung group, consisting of 399 patients with lung cancer and 1 esophagus cancer patient and a Lymph./Breast group with 78 patients treated for malignant lymphoma, 59 for breast cancer, and 3 for other tumor types. The dose per fraction varied between 1.0 and 2.7 Gy and the prescribed total dose between 20 and 92 Gy. Three-dimensional dose calculations were performed with tissue density inhomogeneity correction. The physical dose distribution was converted into the biologically equivalent dose distribution given in fractions of 2 Gy, the normalized total dose (NTD) distribution, by using the linear quadratic model with an alpha/beta ratio of 2.5 and 3.0 Gy. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were calculated considering both lungs as one organ and from these DVHs the mean (biological) lung dose, NTDmean, was obtained. Radiation pneumonitis was scored as a complication when the pneumonitis grade was grade 2 (steroids needed for medical treatment) or higher. For statistical analysis the conventional normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model of Lyman (with n=1) was applied along with an institutional-dependent offset parameter to account for systematic differences in scoring patients at different institutions. RESULTS: The mean lung dose, NTDmean, ranged from 0 to 34 Gy and 73 of the 540 patients experienced pneumonitis, grade 2 or higher. In all centers, an increasing pneumonitis rate was observed with increasing NTDmean. The data were fitted to the Lyman model with NTD50=31.8 Gy and m=0.43, assuming that for all patients the same parameter values could be used. However, in the low dose range at an NTDmean between 4 and 16 Gy, the observed pneumonitis incidence in the Lung group (10%) was significantly (p=0.02) higher than in the Lymph./Breast group (1.4%). Moreover, between the Lung groups of different institutions, also significant (p=0.04) differences were present: for centers 2, 3, and 4, the pneumonitis incidence was about 13%, whereas for center 5 only 3%. Explicitly accounting for these differences by adding center-dependent offset values for the Lung group, improved the data fit significantly (p < 10(-5)) with NTD50=30.5+/-1.4 Gy and m=0.30+/-0.02 (+/-1 SE) for all patients, and an offset of 0-11% for the Lung group, depending on the center. CONCLUSIONS: The mean lung dose, NTDmean, is relatively easy to calculate, and is a useful predictor of the risk of radiation pneumonitis. The observed dose-effect relation between the NTDmean and the incidence of radiation pneumonitis, based on a large clinical data set, might be of value in dose-escalating studies for lung cancer. The validity of the obtained dose-effect relation will have to be tested in future studies, regarding the influence of confounding factors and dose distributions different from the ones in this study.

Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation↗
PubMed1998

Phantoms for IMRT dose distribution measurement and treatment verification.

BACKGROUND: The verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) patient treatment dose distributions is currently based on custom-built or modified dose measurement phantoms. The only commercially available IMRT treatment planning and delivery system (Peacock, NOMOS Corp.) is supplied with a film phantom that allows accurate spatial localization of the dose distribution using radiographic film. However, measurements using other dosimeters are necessary for the thorough verification of IMRT. METHODS: We have developed a phantom to enable dose measurements using a cylindrical ionization chamber and the localization of prescription isodose curves using a matrix of thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) chips. The external phantom cross-section is identical to that of the commercial phantom, to allow direct comparisons of measurements. A supplementary phantom has been fabricated to verify the IMRT dose distributions for pelvis treatments. RESULTS: To date, this phantom has been used for the verification of IMRT dose distributions for head and neck and prostate cancer treatments. Designs are also presented for a phantom insert to be used with polymerizing gels (e.g., BANG-2) to obtain volumetric dose distribution measurements. CONCLUSION: The phantoms have proven useful in the quantitative evaluation of IMRT treatments.

Head and Neck Neoplasms↗
PubMed1998

Multiple machine implementation of enhanced dynamic wedge.

PURPOSE: After acquiring 4 years of experience with Dynamic Wedge, a software-driven one-dimensional (1D) compensation system, we implemented a new software version called Enhanced Dynamic Wedge (EDW). The EDW allows larger (30 cm) and asymmetric field sizes and additional angles for wedged fields. We implemented this software on four similar dual-energy accelerators that also possess upper and lower physical wedge sets. Our goal was to implement EDW with one common wedge factor (WF) table and one set of treatment-planning files. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We measured WFs with an ionization chamber and isodose profiles with both film and a diode array. We used a calculation scheme that requires only entry of the wedge angle and fixed jaw value. Filters for computerized treatment planning were configured for each wedge angle. We also examined to what degree the multileaf collimation (MLC) orientation, which is orthogonal to the EDW direction, was compromised for specific treatment sites. As a comparative test, we examined the dosimetric consistency for the 8 sets of physical wedges on the four machines. Finally, we updated our DW quality assurance program for EDW. RESULTS: The measured EDW WF was common for all four machines to within +/- 1.5% and the calculation scheme held to within 1.5%. The EDW isodoses were consistent among the machines as measured by film and diode array. The treatment-planning filters provided computed isodose profiles that were nearly identical to measured profiles. Regarding MLC orientation, we found that the collimator angle needed for EDW did not compromise isodose distributions, as apparent in measured isodoses and calculated dose-volume histograms. The consistency of the physical wedges did not fare as well. Two of the lower wedge sets had Wfs and profiles different (> 3%) from the other wedge sets. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully implemented EDW on four machines using only one WF table and one set of treatment-planning filters. The EDW provides for improved treatment techniques for particular sites due to the large field sizes and additional angles available. Daily treatment efficiency has increased because of the remote capability provided by EDW.

Humans↗
PubMed1998

Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The accuracy of dose calculation and delivery of a commercial serial tomotherapy treatment planning and delivery system (Peacock. NOMOS Corporation) was experimentally determined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: External beam fluence distributions were optimized and delivered to test treatment plan target volumes, including three with cylindrical targets with diameters ranging from 2.0 to 6.2 cm and lengths of 0.9 through 4.8 cm, one using three cylindrical targets and two using C-shaped targets surrounding a critical structure, each with different dose distribution optimization criteria. Computer overlays of film-measured and calculated planar dose distributions were used to assess the dose calculation and delivery spatial accuracy. A 0.125 cm3 ionization chamber was used to conduct absolute point dosimetry verification. Thermoluminescent dosimetry chips, a small-volume ionization chamber and radiochromic film were used as independent checks of the ion chamber measurements. RESULTS: Spatial localization accuracy was found to be better than +/-2.0 mm in the transverse axes (with one exception of 3.0 mm) and +/-1.5 mm in the longitudinal axis. Dosimetric verification using single slice delivery versions of the plans showed that the relative dose distribution was accurate to +/-2% within and outside the target volumes (in high dose and low dose gradient regions) with a mean and standard deviation for all points of -0.05% and 1.1%, respectively. The absolute dose per monitor unit was found to vary by +/-3.5% of the mean value due to the lack of consideration for leakage radiation and the limited scattered radiation integration in the dose calculation algorithm. To deliver the prescribed dose, adjustment of the monitor units by the measured ratio would be required. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment planning and delivery system offered suitably accurate spatial registration and dose delivery of serial tomotherapy generated dose distributions. The quantitative dose comparisons were made as far as possible from abutment regions and examination of the dosimetry of these regions will also be important. Because of the variability in the dose per monitor unit and the complex nature of the calculation and delivery of serial tomotherapy, patient-specific quality assurance procedures will include a measurement of the delivered target dose.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1998

A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.

The commissioning of a three-dimensional treatment planning system requires comparisons of measured and calculated dose distributions. Techniques have been developed to facilitate quantitative comparisons, including superimposed isodoses, dose-difference, and distance-to-agreement (DTA) distributions. The criterion for acceptable calculation performance is generally defined as a tolerance of the dose and DTA in regions of low and high dose gradients, respectively. The dose difference and DTA distributions complement each other in their useful regions. A composite distribution has recently been developed that presents the dose difference in regions that fail both dose-difference and DTA comparison criteria. Although the composite distribution identifies locations where the calculation fails the preselected criteria, no numerical quality measure is provided for display or analysis. A technique is developed to unify dose distribution comparisons using the acceptance criteria. The measure of acceptability is the multidimensional distance between the measurement and calculation points in both the dose and the physical distance, scaled as a fraction of the acceptance criteria. In a space composed of dose and spatial coordinates, the acceptance criteria form an ellipsoid surface, the major axis scales of which are determined by individual acceptance criteria and the center of which is located at the measurement point in question. When the calculated dose distribution surface passes through the ellipsoid, the calculation passes the acceptance test for the measurement point. The minimum radial distance between the measurement point and the calculation points (expressed as a surface in the dose-distance space) is termed the gamma index. Regions where gamma > 1 correspond to locations where the calculation does not meet the acceptance criteria. The determination of gamma throughout the measured dose distribution provides a presentation that quantitatively indicates the calculation accuracy. Examples of a 6 MV beam penumbra are used to illustrate the gamma index.

Gamma Rays↗
PubMed1998

A software tool for the quantitative evaluation of 3D dose calculation algorithms.

Current methods for evaluating modern radiation therapy treatment planning (RTP) systems include the manual superposition of calculated and measured isodose curves and the comparison of a limited number of calculated and measured point doses. Both techniques have significant limitations in providing quantitative evaluations of the large number of dose data generated by modern RTP systems. More sophisticated comparison techniques have been presented in the literature, including dose-difference and distance-to-agreement (DTA) analyses. A software tool has been developed that uses superimposed isodose plots, dose-difference, and DTA distributions to quantify errors in computed dose distributions. Dose-difference and DTA analyses are overly sensitive in regions of high- and low-dose gradient, respectively. The logical union of locations that fail both dose-difference and DTA acceptance criteria, termed the composite evaluation, is calculated and displayed. The composite evaluation provides a method for the physicist to efficiently identify regions that fail both the dose-difference and DTA acceptance criteria. The tool provides a computer platform for the quantitative comparison of calculated and measured dose distributions.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1998

Quality assurance for 3D conformal radiation therapy.

Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT) can be considered as an integrated process of treatment planning, delivery, and verification that attempts to conform the prescription dose closely to the target volume while limiting dose to critical normal structures. Requiring the prescription dose to conform as closely as possible to the target volume raises the level of the precision and accuracy requirements generally found in conventional radiation therapy. 3D CRT treatment planning requires robust patient immobilization/repositioning systems and volumetric image data (CT and/or MR) acquired in the treatment position. 3D treatment planning more explicitly details the particulars of a patient's treatment than was ever possible with 2D treatment planning. In 1992, we implemented a formal 3D treatment planning service in our clinic and at that same time instituted a formal quality assurance (QA) program addressing the individual procedures that make up the 3D CRT process. Our 3D QA program includes systematic testing of the hardware and software used in the 3D treatment planning process, careful review of each patient's treatment plan, careful review of the physical implementation of the treatment plan, a peer review 3D QA Case Conference, and a formal continuing education program in 3D CRT for our radiation therapy staff. This broad 3D QA program requires the involvement of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, and the treating radiation therapists that complete the team responsible for 3D CRT. 3D CRT capabilities change the kinds of radiation therapy treatments that are possible and that changes the process with which treatment planning and treatment delivery are performed. There is no question that 3D CRT shows significant potential for improving the quality of radiation therapy and improving the efficiency with which it can be delivered. However, its implementation and wide spread use is still in its initial stages. The techniques used for 3D treatment planning and the associated QA procedures and tests should still be considered developmental and changes are likely to continue to occur over the next several years.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1998

Initial experience with quality assurance of multi-institutional 3D radiotherapy clinical trials. A brief report.

In 1992, a 3D Quality Assurance (3D QA) Center was established at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology under the auspices of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG). The role of the 3D QA Center is to provide quality assurance reviews of external beam treatment planning and verification (TPV) information for patients enrolled in multi-institutional 3D radiotherapy treatment protocols. Computer hardware and software components have been implemented which allow participating institutions to submit (via either the Internet or magnetic tape) common format 3D TPV data for QA review including: volumetric CT image data, normal structure, tumor and target volume contours, digitally reconstructed radiographs or simulator (prescription) and portal radiographs, beam geometry, dose distributions, fractionation information, and dose-volume histograms. Prior to enrolling patients on a 3D radiotherapy treatment protocol, each participating institution is required to complete a 3D Facility Questionnaire documenting their 3D treatment planning capability. In addition, the successful completion of a protocol "dry run" test is required to demonstrate the participating institution's ability to submit a protocol complaint digital data set to the 3D QA Center prior to placing patients on the 3D CRT study. Two site specific (prostate and lung) phase I/II 3D dose escalation trials are currently accruing patients. The QA center reviews at a minimum the first 5 cases from each participating institution and spot checks subsequent submissions. For each case review the following parameters are evaluated: 1. data exchange compliance, 2. CT data quality, 3. target volume contours, 4. normal structure contours, 5. field placement, 6. field shape, 7. dose prescription, 8. dose uniformity, and 9. dose conformity. By April 1997, over 300 protocol patient TPV data sets have been submitted and reviewed by the 3D QA Center.

Clinical Protocols↗
PubMed1997

A volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections for 6 and 18 MV photons.

PURPOSE: For treatment of lung cancer, dose heterogeneity corrections and subsequent prescription alteration remain controversial. Previous dosimetry studies based on slab geometry with a single beam geometry do not represent the clinical situation. A circumscribed tumor within lung poses a more complex problem. Energy choice also remains controversial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anthropomorphic phantom was modified by replacing lung cylinders (2.5 and 5.0 cm diameters by 5.0 cm length) with muscle-equivalent cylinders. The phantom was scanned on a CT simulator. Gross, clinical, and planning target volumes (GTV, CTV, PTV1 including tumor and regional nodes, PTV2 including tumor only) were designated slice-by-slice. Three-dimensional planning was performed with large fields (AP/PA/RPO) covering PTV1 and boost fields optimized for each PTV2, for 6 and 18 MV photons. Homogeneous, Ratio-Tissue-Air-Ratio (RTAR), and convolution-adapted RTAR (CARTAR) calculation algorithms were tested. Film was placed between phantom slices at the "tumor" levels. The phantom was irradiated with monitor units corresponding to homogeneous calculations, based on a homogeneous prescription. Measured and calculated doses were compared by isodoses and dose volume histograms. Ionization chambers and TLDs were also used for some test cases. RESULTS: The measured minimum dose covering PTV2 was within 5% of the homogeneous prescription dose of 70 Gy for 6 MV photons, while a lower dose (89% of prescription dose) was measured for 18 MV. The algorithms overpredicted the minimum dose to PTV2 by 6-18%. If the monitor units had been reduced according to simplistic heterogeneous calculations, the small PTV2 would have only been covered by 58 Gy for 18 MV irradiation. Based on this, a clinician may opt to actually increase the prescribed dose, thereby offsetting decreased monitor units. None of the algorithms predicted the diffuse penumbra associated with 18 MV photons in lung. CONCLUSION: Before adjusting dose prescriptions based on heterogeneity corrections, realistic phantom studies must be performed. The accuracy and effect of the corrections must then be assessed. The deficient coverage of PTV2 by the 18 MV beam compares unfavorably with the slight increase (5%) in hot spots associated with 6 MV. Our studies support strong caution before reducing dose prescriptions based on simple algorithms.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1997

The influence of angular misalignment on fixed-portal intensity modulated radiation therapy.

A method has been developed to estimate potential dose errors due to linear accelerator angular setting misalignments of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) treatments. A first-order approximation to the dose error at a point is modeled as the dot product of the dose gradient and the shift vector of the point due to the rotational error. The analysis method is applied to a previously published set of optimized fluences for a 50 MV IMRT pelvis irradiation. Three of the published cases exhibiting a wide range of modulation are presented; a rectangular open field, a field optimized for a static multileaf collimator defining the portal outline coupled with a single broad bremsstrahlung profile modulation, and a fully modulated field using a physical modulator. To examine the energy dependence of angle setting errors, the study is repeated using the same fluence distributions, but with a dose-spread kernel appropriate for a 6 MV photon beam. The collimator angle error is set to 2 degree, and the dose error determined with both a centrally located isocenter and an isocenter chosen to model a split-field geometry. The dose error due to a 2 degree gantry setting error is assessed at a plane 10 cm distal to the isocenter. The mathematical form of the dose error due to couch motion is similar to the other two errors, so the dose error resulting from a couch angle missetting is not presented. The magnitude of the errors is largest for the 6 MV beam, while the volume encompassed by the errors is greater for the 50 MV beam. The gantry error yields the largest dose error values, with the 6 MV modulated case presenting dose errors of greater than 40%.

Humans↗
PubMed1997

Advances in three-dimensional treatment planning and conformal dose delivery.

Radiation therapy treatment planning and delivery capabilities have changed dramatically over the past decade and are in the process of changing even more dramatically over the next few years. Three-dimensional radiation treatment planning systems, once the purview of university research groups, are now commercially available and are rapidly being implemented in clinics around the world. These developments have prompted medical accelerator manufacturers to use advanced computer technology to produce treatment delivery systems capable of precise shaping of dose distributions via computer-controlled multileaf collimators (MLC). The latest development exploits the use of fields in which the beam intensity is varied optimally within the portal boundary and is referred to it as intensity modulated radiation therapy. This approach is capable of generating extremely conformal dose distributions including concave isodose volumes that provide specific avoidance of sensitive normal structures within complex treatment geometries. These new capabilities change the kinds of treatments that are possible, and that changes the process with which treatment planning and treatment delivery are performed. These technological advances show significant potential for improving both the quality of radiation therapy and/or improving the efficiency with which radiation therapy can be planned and delivered.

Animals↗
PubMed1996

Real-time 3D dose calculation and display: a tool for plan optimization.

PURPOSE: Both human and computer optimization of treatment plans have advantages; humans are much better at global pattern recognition, and computers are much better at detailed calculations. A major impediment to human optimization of treatment plans by manipulation of beam parameters is the long time required for feedback to the operator on the effectiveness of a change in beam parameters. Our goal was to create a real-time dose calculation and display system that provides the planner with immediate (fraction of a second) feedback with displays of three-dimensional (3D) isodose surfaces, digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs), dose-volume histograms, and/or a figure of merit (FOM) (i.e., a single value plan score function). This will allow the experienced treatment planner to optimize a plan by adjusting beam parameters based on a direct indication of plan effectiveness, the FOM value, and to use 3D display of target, critical organs, DRRs, and isodose contours to guide changes aimed at improving the FOM value. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We use computer platforms that contain easily utilized parallel processors and very tight coupling between calculation and display. We ported code running on a network of two workstations and an array of transputers to a single multiprocessor workstation. Our current high-performance graphics workstation contains four 150-MHz processors that can be readily used in a shared-memory multithreaded calculation. RESULTS: When a 10 x 10-cm beam is moved, using an 8-mm dose grid, the full 3D dose matrix is recalculated using a Bentley-Milan-type dose calculation algorithm, and the 3D dose surface display is then updated, all in < 0.1s. A 64 x 64-pixel DRR calculation can be performed in < 0.1 s. Other features, such as automated aperture calculation, are still required to make real-time feedback practical for clinical use. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that real-time plan optimization using general purpose multiprocessor workstations is a practical goal. Parallel processing technology provides this capability for 3D planning systems, and when combined with objective plan ranking algorithms should prove effective for optimizing 3D conformal radiation therapy. Compared to our earlier transputer work, multiprocessor workstations are more easily programmed, making software development costs more reasonable compared with uniprocessor development costs. How the dose calculation is partitioned into parallel tasks on a multiprocessor work station can make a significant difference in performance. Shared-memory multiprocessor workstations are our first choice for future work, because they require minimum programming effort and continue to be driven to higher performance by competition in the workstation arena.

Computer Graphics↗