Biomedical subjects

Bernhard Kroupa

Publications and source records attributed to Bernhard Kroupa.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Inverse planning--a comparative intersystem and interpatient constraint study.

PURPOSE: To compare commercial treatment-planning systems (TPS) for inverse planning (IP) and to assess constraint variations for specific IMRT indications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For IP, OTP, XiO and BrainSCAN were used and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery was assumed. Based on identical constraints, IP was performed for a prostate, head and neck, brain, and gynecologic case. IMRT plans were compared in terms of conformity/homogeneity, dose-volume histograms (DVHs), and delivery efficiency. For ten patients each of a class of indications, constraint variations were evaluated. RESULTS: IMRT plans were comparable concerning minimum target dose, homogeneity, conformity, and maximum doses to organs at risk. Larger differences were seen in dose gradients outside the target, monitor units, and segment number. Using help structures proved efficient to shape isodoses and to reduce segmentation workload. For IMRT class solutions, IP constraint variations depended on anatomic site. CONCLUSION: IP systems requiring doses as input and having objective functions based on physical parameters had a very similar performance. Constraint templates can be established for a class of IMRT indications.

Brain Neoplasms↗

PubMed2005

Impact of IMRT and leaf width on stereotactic body radiotherapy of liver and lung lesions.

PURPOSE: The present study explored the impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on stereotactic body RT (SBRT) of liver and lung lesions. Additionally, because target dose conformity can be affected by the leaf width of a multileaf collimator (MLC), especially for small targets and stereotactic applications, the use of a micro-MLC on "uniform intensity" conformal and intensity-modulated SBRT was evaluated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The present study included 10 patients treated previously with SBRT in our institution (seven lung and three liver lesions). All patients were treated with 3 x 12 Gy prescribed to the 65% isodose level. The actual MLC-based conformal treatment plan served as the standard for additional comparison. In total, seven alternative treatment plans were made for each patient: a standard (actual) plan and an IMRT plan, both calculated with Helax TMS (Nucletron) using a pencil beam model; and a recalculated standard and a recalculated IMRT plan on Helax TMS using a point dose kernel approach. These four treatment plans were based on a standard MLC with 1-cm leaf width. Additionally, the following micro-MLC (central leaf width 3 mm)-based treatment plans were calculated with the BrainSCAN (BrainLAB) system: standard, IMRT, and dynamic arc treatments. For each treatment plan, various target parameters (conformity, coverage, mean, maximal, and minimal target dose, equivalent uniform doses, and dose-volume histogram), as well as organs at risk parameters (3 Gy and 6 Gy volume, mean dose, dose-volume histogram) were evaluated. Finally, treatment efficiency was estimated from monitor units and the number of segments for IMRT solutions. RESULTS: For both treatment planning systems, no significant difference could be observed in terms of target conformity between the standard and IMRT dose distributions. All dose distributions obtained with the micro-MLC showed significantly better conformity values compared with the standard and IMRT plans using a regular MLC. Dynamic arc plans were characterized by the steepest dose gradient and thus the smallest V(6 Gy) values, which were on average 7% smaller than the standard plans and 20% lower than the IMRT plans. Although the Helax TMS IMRT plans show about 18% more monitor units than the standard plan, BrainSCAN IMRT plans require approximately twice the number of monitor units relative to the standard plan. All treatment plans optimized with a pencil beam model but recalculated with a superposition method showed significant qualitative, as well as quantitative, differences, especially with respect to conformity and the dose to organs at risk. CONCLUSION: Standard conformal treatment techniques for SBRT could not be improved with inversely planned IMRT approaches. Dose calculation algorithms applied in optimization modules for IMRT applications in the thoracic region need to be based on the most accurate dose calculation algorithms, especially when using higher energy photon beams.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2005

Interpretation and evaluation of the gamma index and the gamma index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans.

In IMRT, the method for a quantitative comparison of two-dimensional dose distributions is still under development. The gamma evaluation method proposed by Low et al is the most accepted approach and has been adapted by many groups. Based on the concept of Low et al we developed a software tool with an intelligent search algorithm to minimize the calculation time. For the interpretation of deviations a y angle distribution and other tools (dose difference map, profiles, y area histograms, etc) are integrated in the software package. Ten hybrid plans are included in the verification study containing 6 IMRT head and neck cases, 2 IMRT prostate cases and one IMRT paravertebral case as well as a standard uniform intensity conformal 4 field box treatment for comparison. IMRT plans are realized with a segmental MLC delivery technique. The fields of a hybrid plan are applied at once and dose distributions are measured with films in three planes of a verification phantom. All y vector calculations are based on a 3% dose criterion and a 3 mm DTA acceptance criterion. The mean value gamma(mean) (mean value in the y distribution) of the various IMRT plans is 0.45+/-0.10 (1 SD). On average, the percentage of points exceeding the acceptance criteria of gamma < or = 1 (gamma > 1) is 5.8+/-5.4% (1 SD). The mean value of gamma 1% (1% of points have an equal or higher gamma value) is 1.47+/-0.59 (1 SD) for IMRT plans. In 5 out of 27 planes, gamma > 1 is substantially larger than the average. This is also indicated in gamma area histograms. Planes with large areas outside the tolerance criteria were further evaluated using gamma angle distributions. This additional information indicates that the large areas with high gamma values are dominated by the dose difference. It is shown that the deviations are influenced by tongue and groove effects. From the statistical evaluation of gamma values (e.g. gamma area histogram), acceptance criteria for IMRT hybrid plans can be defined. For the interpretation of the gamma maps, distributions of the gamma angle and traditional evaluation methods, such as dose profiles, are still very useful.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2003

Normalized sensitometric curves for the verification of hybrid IMRT treatment plans with multiple energies.

With the clinical implementation of time-variable dose patterns and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) film dosimetry has regained popularity. Films are currently the most frequently used dosimetric means for patient specific quality assurance in IMRT. A common method is to verify a so-called hybrid IMRT plan, which is the patient specific treatment plan with unmodified fluence patterns recalculated in a dedicated phantom. For such applications the sensitometric curve, i.e., the relation between optical density (OD) and absorbed dose, should not depend critically on beam energy, field size and depth, or film orientation. In order to minimize the influence of all these variables a normalization of sensitometric curves is performed at various photon beam energies (6 MV, 10 MV, 25 MV). By doing so one unique sensitometric curve can be used for these three beam qualities. This holds for both film types investigated: Kodak X-Omat V films and EDR-2 films. Additionally, the influence of field size, depth and film orientation on a normalized sensitometric curve is determined for both film types. For doses smaller than 0.8 Gy for X-Omat V and doses smaller than 3 Gy for EDR-2 films the field size variation of normalized sensitometric curves is much smaller than 3% for fields up to 20 x 20 cm2. For X-Omat V films all differences between sensitometric curves determined at depths of 5, 10, and 15 cm are smaller than 3%. For EDR-2 films deviations larger than 3% are only observed at low net OD smaller than 0.25. The dependence of film orientation (parallel versus perpendicular) on a normalized sensitometric curve is found to be not critical. However, processing conditions have the largest influence and can result in differences up to 20% for sensitometric curves derived from films of the same batch but using different film processors. When normalizing sensitometric curves to the dose value necessary to obtain a net OD=1 for that respective geometry and energy the large energy dependence of sensitometric curves can be almost eliminated. This becomes especially important for the verification of hybrid IMRT plans with multiple energies. Additionally, such a normalization minimizes other influences such as field size, depth, and film orientation. This method is generally applicable to both Kodak X-Omat V and EDR-2 films. In order to achieve the highest accuracy level an upper dose limit of 0.8 Gy for X-Omat V films and 3 Gy for EDR-2 films should be taken into account. However, these dose limits may vary with film reading instrument and film processor.

Calibration↗

PubMed2002

Pre-clinical evaluation of an inverse planning module for segmental MLC based IMRT delivery.

Phantom tests are performed for pre-clinical evaluation of a commercial inverse planning system (HELAX TMS, V 6.0) for segmented multileaf collimator (MLC) intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery. The optimization module has available two optimization algorithms: the target primary feasibility and the weighted feasibility algorithm, only the latter allows the user to specify weights for structures. In the first series, single beam tests are performed to evaluate the outcome of inverse planning in terms of plausibility for the following situations: oblique incidence, presence of inhomogeneities, multiple targets at different depths and multiple targets with different desired doses. Additionally, for these tests a manual plan is made for comparison. In the absence of organs at risk, both the optimization algorithms are found to assign the highest priority to low dose constraints for targets. In the second series, tests resembling clinical relevant configurations (simultaneous boost and concave target with critical organ) are performed with multiple beam arrangements in order to determine the impact of the system's configuration on inverse planning. It is found that the definition of certain segment number and segment size limitations does not largely compromise treatment plans when using multiple beams. On the other hand, these limitations are important for delivery efficiency and dosimetry. For the number of iterations and voxels per volume of interest, standard values in the system's configuration are considered to be sufficient. Additionally, it is demonstrated that precautions must be taken to precisely define treatment goals when using computerized treatment optimization. Similar phantom tests could be used for a direct dosimetric verification of all steps from inverse treatment planning to IMRT delivery.

Algorithms↗