PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gary Luxton

Publications and source records attributed to Gary Luxton.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Overview of image-guided radiation therapy.

Radiation therapy has gone through a series of revolutions in the last few decades and it is now possible to produce highly conformal radiation dose distribution by using techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The improved dose conformity and steep dose gradients have necessitated enhanced patient localization and beam targeting techniques for radiotherapy treatments. Components affecting the reproducibility of target position during and between subsequent fractions of radiation therapy include the displacement of internal organs between fractions and internal organ motion within a fraction. Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) uses advanced imaging technology to better define the tumor target and is the key to reducing and ultimately eliminating the uncertainties. The purpose of this article is to summarize recent advancements in IGRT and discussed various practical issues related to the implementation of the new imaging techniques available to radiation oncology community. We introduce various new IGRT concepts and approaches, and hope to provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the emerging clinical IGRT technologies. Some important research topics will also be addressed.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

A quality assurance program for the on-board imagers.

To develop a quality assurance (QA) program for the On-Board Imager (OBI) system and to summarize the results of these QA tests over extended periods from multiple institutions. Both the radiographic and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) mode of operation have been evaluated. The QA programs from four institutions have been combined to generate a series of tests for evaluating the performance of the On-Board Imager. The combined QA program consists of three parts: (1) safety and functionality, (2) geometry, and (3) image quality. Safety and functionality tests evaluate the functionality of safety features and the clinical operation of the entire system during the tube warm-up. Geometry QA verifies the geometric accuracy and stability of the OBI/CBCT hardware/software. Image quality QA monitors spatial resolution and contrast sensitivity of the radiographic images. Image quality QA for CBCT includes tests for Hounsfield Unit (HU) linearity, HU uniformity, spatial linearity, and scan slice geometry, in addition. All safety and functionality tests passed on a daily basis. The average accuracy of the OBI isocenter was better than 1.5 mm with a range of variation of less than 1 mm over 8 months. The average accuracy of arm positions in the mechanical geometry QA was better than 1 mm, with a range of variation of less than 1 mm over 8 months. Measurements of other geometry QA tests showed stable results within tolerance throughout the test periods. Radiographic contrast sensitivity ranged between 2.2% and 3.2% and spatial resolution ranged between 1.25 and 1.6 lp/mm. Over four months the CBCT images showed stable spatial linearity, scan slice geometry, contrast resolution (1%; <7 mm disk) and spatial resolution (>6 lp/cm). The HU linearity was within +/-40 HU for all measurements. By combining test methods from multiple institutions, we have developed a comprehensive, yet practical, set of QA tests for the OBI system. Use of the tests over extended periods show that the OBI system has reliable mechanical accuracy and stable image quality. Nevertheless, the tests have been useful in detecting performance deficits in the OBI system that needed recalibration. It is important that all tests are performed on a regular basis.

Equipment Failure Analysis↗
PubMed2004

Lens dose in MLC-based IMRT treatments of the head and neck.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this work are: (1) to determine typical dose to the lens during step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments of the head and neck, and (2) to report on the dose calculation accuracy of a commercial inverse planning system in predicting lens dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Corvus inverse treatment planning system (Nomos, Cranberry Township, PA) was used to plan IMRT treatments for patients with head-and-neck cancers in our clinic. Patients were treated on Varian C-series linacs (Varian, Palo Alto, CA) with 4-MV or 6-MV X-rays. A Rando phantom (Alderson Laboratories, Stamford, CT) was specially modified to accommodate 1 x 1 x 1 mm(3) thermoluminescent dosimeters at the position of the lens. The IMRT treatment plans were then delivered to the modified Rando phantom. The thermoluminescent dosimeter measurements were converted to dose and taken as an estimate of the lens dose. A total of 20 cases were used in this study (15 cases with 4 MV and 5 cases with 6 MV). RESULTS: Expressed as a percentage of the prescription dose, the mean dose to the left and right lens for all 4-MV cases was 9.1% (range, 2.0% to 61.3%). For the 6-MV cases, the mean dose to the left and right lens was 12.8% (range, 3.6% to 41.3%). For both the 4-MV and 6-MV cases, the case of maximum dose occurred when the IMRT treatment target included volumes superior to the level of the lens. The field size and number of monitor units did not correlate with the measured lens dose. The only factor of significance affecting lens dose was the inferior-to-superior distance of the target to the lens. For target-lens distance >/=6 mm, the maximum measured lens doses were 5.9% and 9.0% relative to the prescribed dose for the 4-MV and 6-MV beams, respectively. These data are similar to those observed in conventional head-and-neck treatments. For all cases, the difference between the dose measured and that predicted by Corvus was less than 2% and 4% of the dose prescribed to the gross tumor volume for the 4-MV and 6-MV cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: In IMRT, factors such as leaf leakage and number of monitor units play a secondary role and are not more significant than what is observed in conventional head-and-neck treatment when the lens is shielded by the collimator jaws. The target-lens distance is the parameter that affects the lens dose most strongly. For cases where the tumor is at or above the level of the lens, the lens dose can amount to an appreciable fraction of the prescription dose. To keep the lens dose to a minimum, noncoplanar beams that enter or exit into the lens should not be used.

Calibration↗
PubMed2004

Dosimetry and radiobiologic model comparison of IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy in treatment of carcinoma of the prostate.

INTRODUCTION: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has introduced novel dosimetry that often features increased dose heterogeneity to target and normal structures. This raises questions of the biologic effects of IMRT compared to conventional treatment. We compared dosimetry and radiobiologic model predictions of tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for prostate cancer patients planned for IMRT as opposed to standardized three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Segmented multileaf collimator IMRT treatment plans for 32 prostate cancer patients were compared to 3DCRT plans for the same patients. Twenty-two received local-field irradiation (LFI), and 10 received extended-field irradiation (EFI) that included pelvic lymph nodes. For LFI, IMRT was planned for delivery of 2 Gy minimum dose to the prostate (> or =99% volume coverage) for 35 fractions. The 3DCRT plans, characterized by more homogenous dose to the target, were designed according to a different protocol to deliver 2 Gy to the center of the prostate for 37 fractions. Mean total dose from 35 fractions of IMRT was equal to mean total dose from 37 fractions of 3DCRT. For EFI, both IMRT and 3DCRT were planned for 2 Gy per fraction to a total dose of 50 Gy to prostate and pelvic lymph nodes, followed by 2 Gy per fraction to 20 Gy to the prostate alone. Treatment dose for EFI-IMRT was defined as minimum dose to the target, whereas for EFI-3DCRT, it was defined as dose to the center of the prostate. TCP was calculated for the prostate in the linear-quadratic model for two choices of alpha/beta. NTCP was calculated with the Lyman model for organs at risk, using Kutcher-Burman dose-volume histogram reduction with Emami parameters. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Dose to the prostate, expressed as mean +/- standard deviation, was 74.7 +/- 1.1 Gy for IMRT vs. 74.6 +/- 0.3 Gy for 3D for the LFI plans, and 74.8 +/- 0.6 Gy for IMRT vs. 71.5 +/- 0.6 Gy for 3D for the EFI plans. For the studied protocols, TCP was greater for IMRT than for 3D across the full range of target sensitivity, for both localized- and extended-field irradiation. For LFI, this was due to the smaller number of fractions (35 vs. 37) used for IMRT, and for EFI, this was due to the greater mean dose for IMRT, compared to 3D. For all organs, mean NTCP tended to be lower for IMRT than for 3D, although NTCP values were very small for both 3D and IMRT. Differences were statistically significant for rectum (LFI and EFI), bladder (EFI), and bowel (EFI). For both LFI and EFI, the calculated NTCPs qualitatively agreed with early published clinical data comparing genitourinary and gastrointestinal complications of IMRT and 3D. Present calculations support the hypothesis that accurately delivered IMRT for prostate cancer can limit dose to normal tissue by reducing treatment margins relative to conventional 3D planning, to allow a reduction in complication rate spanning several sensitive structures while maintaining or increasing tumor control probability.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

Independent dosimetric calculation with inclusion of head scatter and MLC transmission for IMRT.

Independent verification of the MU settings and dose calculation of IMRT treatment plans is an important step in the IMRT quality assurance (QA) procedure. At present, the verification is mainly based on experimental measurements, which are time consuming and labor intensive. Although a few simplified algorithms have recently been proposed for the independent dose (or MU) calculation, head scatter has not been precisely taken into account in all these investigations and the dose validation has mainly been limited to the central axis. In this work we developed an effective computer algorithm for IMRT MU and dose validation. The technique is superior to the currently available computer-based MU check systems in that (1) it takes full consideration of the head scatter and leaf transmission effects; and (2) it allows a precise dose calculation at an arbitrary spatial point instead of merely a point on the central axis. In the algorithm the dose at an arbitrary spatial point is expressed as a summation of the contributions of primary and scatter radiation from all beamlets. Each beamlet is modulated by a dynamic modulation factor (DMF), which is determined by the MLC leaf trajectories, the head scatter, the jaw positions, and the MLC leaf transmission. A three-source model was used to calculate the head scatter distribution for irregular segments shaped by MLC and the scatter dose contributions were computed using a modified Clarkson method. The system reads in MLC leaf sequence files (or RTP files) generated by the Corvus (NOMOS Corporation, Sewickley, PA) inverse planning system and then computes the doses at the desired points. The algorithm was applied to study the dose distributions of several testing intensity modulated fields and two multifield Corvus plans and the results were compared with Corvus plans and experimental measurements. The final dose calculations at most spatial points agreed with the experimental measurements to within 3% for both the specially designed testing fields and the clinical intensity modulated field. Furthermore, excellent agreement (mostly within +/- 3.0%) was also found between our independent calculation and the ion chamber measurements at both central axis and off-axis positions for the multifield Corvus IMRT plans. These results indicate that the approach is robust and valuable for routine clinical IMRT plan validation.

Algorithms↗