Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Jeffrey F Williamson.
Two iterative methods are developed for forming a maximum-likelihood estimate of the attenuation density in a patient or object for transmission tomography when projection data are incomplete. The methods converge monotonically to the same limit points. Results of testing the methods with both simulated and real data are given.
The 50-year tenure of Physics in Medicine and Biology has coincided with some of the most important developments in radiological science, including the introduction of artificial radioactivity, computers and 3D imaging into medicine. These events have profoundly influenced the development of brachytherapy. Although it is not the dominant radiotherapy modality, it continues to play an important role in cancer therapy, more than a century after its introduction. This paper reviews the impact of three broad categories of innovation introduced since 1950 from the North American perspective: the introduction of artificial radioactivity, computer- and image-based treatment planning, and basic single-source dosimetry.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of previously reported superposition/convolution (SC) dosimetric results by comparing with Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations for head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) patients treated with the simultaneous integrated boost technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-one plans from 24 patients previously treated on a phase I/II head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma simultaneous integrated boost IMRT protocol were used. Clinical dose distributions, computed with an SC algorithm, were recomputed using an EGS4-based MC algorithm. Phantom-based dosimetry quantified the fluence prediction accuracy of each algorithm. Dose-volume indices were used to compare patient dose distributions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The MC algorithm predicts flat-phantom measurements better than the SC algorithm. Average patient dose indices agreed within 2.5% of the local dose for targets; 5.0% for parotids; and 1.9% for cord and brainstem. However, only 1 of 31 plans agreed within 3% for all indices; 4 of 31 agreed within 5%. In terms of the prescription dose, 4 of 31 plans agreed within 3% for all indices, whereas 28 of 31 agreed within 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Average SC-computed doses agreed with MC results in the patient geometry; however deviations >5% were common. The fluence modulation prediction is likely the major source of the dose discrepancy. The observed dose deviations can impact dose escalation protocols, because they would result in shifting patients to higher dose levels.
We address the problem of image formation in transmission tomography when metal objects of known composition and shape, but unknown pose, are present in the scan subject. Using an alternating minimization (AM) algorithm, derived from a model in which the detected data are viewed as Poisson-distributed photon counts, we seek to eliminate the streaking artifacts commonly seen in filtered back projection images containing high-contrast objects. We show that this algorithm, which minimizes the I-divergence (or equivalently, maximizes the log-likelihood) between the measured data and model-based estimates of the means of the data, converges much faster when knowledge of the high-density materials (such as brachytherapy applicators or prosthetic implants) is exploited. The algorithm incorporates a steepest descent-based method to find the position and orientation (collectively called the pose) of the known objects. This pose is then used to constrain the image pixels to their known attenuation values, or, for example, to form a mask on the "missing" projection data in the shadow of the objects. Results from two-dimensional simulations are shown in this paper. The extension of the model and methods used to three dimensions is outlined.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The accurate determination of x-ray signal properties is important to several computed tomography (CT) research and development areas, notably for statistical reconstruction algorithms and dose-reduction simulation. The most commonly used model of CT signal formation, assuming monoenergetic x-ray sources with quantum counting detectors obeying simple Poisson statistics, does not reflect the actual physics of CT acquisition. This paper describes a more accurate model, taking into account the energy-integrating detection process, nonuniform flux profiles, and data-conditioning processes. Methods are developed to experimentally measure and theoretically calculate statistical distributions, as well as techniques to analyze CT signal properties. Results indicate the limitations of current models and suggest improvements for the description of CT signal properties.
The goal of this study is to evaluate the theoretically achievable accuracy in estimating photon cross sections at low energies (20-1000 keV) from idealized dual-energy x-ray computed tomography (CT) images. Cross-section estimation from dual-energy measurements requires a model that can accurately represent photon cross sections of any biological material as a function of energy by specifying only two characteristic parameters of the underlying material, e.g., effective atomic number and density. This paper evaluates the accuracy of two commonly used two-parameter cross-section models for postprocessing idealized measurements derived from dual-energy CT images. The parametric fit model (PFM) accounts for electron-binding effects and photoelectric absorption by power functions in atomic number and energy and scattering by the Klein-Nishina cross section. The basis-vector model (BVM) assumes that attenuation coefficients of any biological substance can be approximated by a linear combination of mass attenuation coefficients of two dissimilar basis substances. Both PFM and BVM were fit to a modern cross-section library for a range of elements and mixtures representative of naturally occurring biological materials (Z = 2-20). The PFM model, in conjunction with the effective atomic number approximation, yields estimated the total linear cross-section estimates with mean absolute and maximum error ranges of 0.6%-2.2% and 1%-6%, respectively. The corresponding error ranges for BVM estimates were 0.02%-0.15% and 0.1%-0.5%. However, for photoelectric absorption frequency, the PFM absolute mean and maximum errors were 10.8%-22.4% and 29%-50%, compared with corresponding BVM errors of 0.4%-11.3% and 0.5%-17.0%, respectively. Both models were found to exhibit similar sensitivities to image-intensity measurement uncertainties. Of the two models, BVM is the most promising approach for realizing dual-energy CT cross-section measurement.
The purpose of this work is to investigate the effect of dose-calculation accuracy on head and neck (H&N) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans by determining the systematic dose-prediction and optimization-convergence errors (DPEs and OCEs), using a superposition/convolution (SC) algorithm. Ten patients with locally advanced H&N squamous cell carcinoma who were treated with simultaneous integrated boost IMRT were selected for this study. The targets consisted of gross target volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and nodal target volumes (CTV nodes). The critical structures included spinal cord, parotid glands, and brainstem. For all patients, three IMRT plans were created: A: an SC optimized plan (SCopt), B: an SCopt plan recalculated with Monte Carlo [MC(SCopt)], and C: an MC optimized plan (MCopt). For each structure, DPEs and OCEs were estimated as DPE(SC)=D(B)-D(A) and OCE(SC)=D(C)-D(B) where A, B, and C stand for the three different optimized plans as defined above. Deliverable optimization was used for all plans, that is, a leaf-sequencing step was incorporated into the optimization loop at each iteration. The range of DPE(SC) in the GTV D98 varied from -1.9% to -4.9%, while the OCE(SC) ranged from 0.9% to 7.0%. The DPE(SC) in the contralateral parotid D50 reached 8.2%, while the OCE(SC) in the contralateral parotid D50 varied from 0.91% to 6.99%. The DPE(SC) in cord D2 reached -3.0%, while the OCE(SC) reached to -7.0%. The magnitude of the DPE(SC) and OCE(SC) differences demonstrate the importance of using the most accurate available algorithm in the deliverable IMRT optimization process, especially for the estimation of normal structure doses.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine dose delivery errors that could result from random and systematic setup errors for head-and-neck patients treated using the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four patients who participated in an intramural Phase I/II parotid-sparing IMRT dose-escalation protocol using the SIB treatment technique had their dose distributions reevaluated to assess the impact of random and systematic setup errors. The dosimetric effect of random setup error was simulated by convolving the two-dimensional fluence distribution of each beam with the random setup error probability density distribution. Random setup errors of sigma = 1, 3, and 5 mm were simulated. Systematic setup errors were simulated by randomly shifting the patient isocenter along each of the three Cartesian axes, with each shift selected from a normal distribution. Systematic setup error distributions with Sigma = 1.5 and 3.0 mm along each axis were simulated. Combined systematic and random setup errors were simulated for sigma = Sigma = 1.5 and 3.0 mm along each axis. For each dose calculation, the gross tumor volume (GTV) received by 98% of the volume (D(98)), clinical target volume (CTV) D(90), nodes D(90), cord D(2), and parotid D(50) and parotid mean dose were evaluated with respect to the plan used for treatment for the structure dose and for an effective planning target volume (PTV) with a 3-mm margin. RESULTS: Simultaneous integrated boost-IMRT head-and-neck treatment plans were found to be less sensitive to random setup errors than to systematic setup errors. For random-only errors, errors exceeded 3% only when the random setup error sigma exceeded 3 mm. Simulated systematic setup errors with Sigma = 1.5 mm resulted in approximately 10% of plan having more than a 3% dose error, whereas a Sigma = 3.0 mm resulted in half of the plans having more than a 3% dose error and 28% with a 5% dose error. Combined random and systematic dose errors with sigma = Sigma = 3.0 mm resulted in more than 50% of plans having at least a 3% dose error and 38% of the plans having at least a 5% dose error. Evaluation with respect to a 3-mm expanded PTV reduced the observed dose deviations greater than 5% for the sigma = Sigma = 3.0 mm simulations to 5.4% of the plans simulated. CONCLUSIONS: Head-and-neck SIB-IMRT dosimetric accuracy would benefit from methods to reduce patient systematic setup errors. When GTV, CTV, or nodal volumes are used for dose evaluation, plans simulated including the effects of random and systematic errors deviate substantially from the nominal plan. The use of PTVs for dose evaluation in the nominal plan improves agreement with evaluated GTV, CTV, and nodal dose values under simulated setup errors. PTV concepts should be used for SIB-IMRT head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma patients, although the size of the margins may be less than those used with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.
In March 2004, the recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) on the interstitial brachytherapy dosimetry using 125I and 103Pd were reported in Medical Physics [TG-43 Update: Rivard et al., 31, 633-674 (2004)]. These recommendations include some minor changes in the dose-calculation formalism and a major update of the dosimetry parameters for eight widely used interstitial brachytherapy sources. A full implementation of these recommendations could result in unintended changes in delivered dose without corresponding revisions in the prescribed dose. Because most published clinical experience with permanent brachytherapy is based upon two widely used source models, the 125I Model 6711 and 103Pd Model 200 sources, in this report we present an analysis of the dosimetric impact of the 2004 TG-43 dosimetry parameters on the history of dose delivery for these two source models. Our analysis indicates that the currently recommended prescribed dose of 125 Gy for Model 200 103Pd implants planned using previously recommended dosimetry parameters [AAPM 103Pd dose prescription: Williamson et al., Med. Phys. 27, 634-642 (2000)] results in a delivered dose of 120 Gy according to dose calculations based on the 2004 TG-43 update. Further, delivered doses prior to October 1997 varied from 113 to 119 Gy for a prescribed dose of 115 Gy compared to 124 Gy estimated by the AAPM 2000 report. For 125I implants using Model 6711 seeds, there are no significant changes (less than 2%). Practicing physicians should take these results into account when selecting the clinically appropriate prescribed dose for 103Pd interstitial implant patients following implementation of the 2004 TG-43 update dose-calculation recommendations. The AAPM recommends that the radiation oncology community review this report and consider whether the currently recommended dose level (125 Gy) needs to be revised.
A Monte Carlo study is carried out to quantify the effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation for 103Pd and 125I prostate implants. Two idealized and two real prostate implants are considered. Full Monte Carlo simulation (FMCS) of implants (seeds are physically and simultaneously simulated) is compared with isotropic point-source dose-kernel superposition (PSKS) and line-source dose-kernel superposition (LSKS) methods. For clinical pre- and post-procedure implants, the dose to the different structures (prostate, rectum wall, and urethra) is calculated. The discretized volumes of these structures are reconstructed using transrectal ultrasound contours. Local dose differences (PSKS versus FMCS and LSKS versus FMCS) are investigated. The dose contributions from primary versus scattered photons are calculated separately. For 103Pd, the average absolute total dose difference between FMCS and PSKS can be as high as 7.4% for the idealized model and 6.1% for the clinical preprocedure implant. Similarly, the total dose difference is lower for the case of 125I: 4.4% for the idealized model and 4.6% for a clinical post-procedure implant. Average absolute dose differences between LSKS and FMCS are less significant for both seed models: 3 to 3.6% for the idealized models and 2.9 to 3.2% for the clinical plans. Dose differences between PSKS and FMCS are due to the absence of both seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation modeling in the PSKS approach. LSKS accounts for seed anisotropy but not for the interseed effect, leading to systematically overestimated dose values in comparison with the more accurate FMCS method. For both idealized and clinical implants the dose from scattered photons represent less than 1/3 of the total dose. For all studied cases, LSKS prostate DVHs overestimate D90 by 2 to 5% because of the missing interseed attenuation effect. PSKS and LSKS predictions of V150 and V200 are overestimated by up to 9% in comparison with the FMCS results. Finally, effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation must be viewed in the context of other significant sources of dose uncertainty, namely seed orientation, source misplacement, prostate morphological changes and tissue heterogeneity.
An accelerated Monte Carlo code [Monte Carlo dose calculation for prostate implant (MCPI)] is developed for dose calculation in prostate brachytherapy. MCPI physically simulates a set of radioactive seeds with arbitrary positions and orientations, merged in a three-dimensional (3D) heterogeneous phantom representing the prostate and surrounding tissue. MCPI uses a phase space data source-model to account for seed self-absorption and seed anisotropy. A "hybrid geometry" model (full 3D seed geometry merged in 3D mesh of voxels) is used for rigorous treatment of the interseed attenuation and tissue heterogeneity effects. MCPI is benchmarked against the MCNP5 code for idealized and real implants, for 103Pd and 125I seeds. MCPI calculates the dose distribution (2-mm voxel mesh) of a 103Pd implant (83 seeds) with 2% average statistical uncertainty in 59 s using a single Pentium 4 PC (2.4 GHz). MCPI is more than 10(3) and 10(4) times faster than MCNP5 for prostate dose calculations using 2- and 1-mm voxels, respectively. To illustrate its usefulness, MCPI is used to quantify the dosimetric effects of interseed attenuation, tissue composition, and tissue calcifications. Ignoring the interseed attenuation effect or slightly varying the prostate tissue composition may lead to 6% decreases of D100, the dose delivered to 100% of the prostate. The presence of calcifications, covering 1%-5% of the prostate volume, decreases D80, D90, and D100 by up to 32%, 37%, and 58%, respectively. In conclusion, sub-minute dose calculations, taking into account all dosimetric effects, are now possible for more accurate dose planning and dose assessment in prostate brachytherapy.
Low dose rate brachytherapy is being used extensively for the treatment of prostate cancer. As of September 2003, there are a total of thirteen 125I and seven 103Pd sources that have calibrations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratories (ADCLs) of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). The dosimetry standards for these sources are traceable to the NIST wide-angle free-air chamber. Procedures have been developed by the AAPM Calibration Laboratory Accreditation Subcommittee to standardize quality assurance and calibration, and to maintain the dosimetric traceability of these sources to ensure accurate clinical dosimetry. A description of these procedures is provided to the clinical users for traceability purposes as well as to provide guidance to the manufacturers of brachytherapy sources and ADCLs with regard to these procedures.
Since publication of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report in 1995 (TG-43), both the utilization of permanent source implantation and the number of low-energy interstitial brachytherapy source models commercially available have dramatically increased. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has introduced a new primary standard of air-kerma strength, and the brachytherapy dosimetry literature has grown substantially, documenting both improved dosimetry methodologies and dosimetric characterization of particular source models. In response to these advances, the AAPM Low-energy Interstitial Brachytherapy Dosimetry subcommittee (LIBD) herein presents an update of the TG-43 protocol for calculation of dose-rate distributions around photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. The updated protocol (TG-43U1) includes (a) a revised definition of air-kerma strength; (b) elimination of apparent activity for specification of source strength; (c) elimination of the anisotropy constant in favor of the distance-dependent one-dimensional anisotropy function; (d) guidance on extrapolating tabulated TG-43 parameters to longer and shorter distances; and (e) correction for minor inconsistencies and omissions in the original protocol and its implementation. Among the corrections are consistent guidelines for use of point- and line-source geometry functions. In addition, this report recommends a unified approach to comparing reference dose distributions derived from different investigators to develop a single critically evaluated consensus dataset as well as guidelines for performing and describing future theoretical and experimental single-source dosimetry studies. Finally, the report includes consensus datasets, in the form of dose-rate constants, radial dose functions, and one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) anisotropy functions, for all low-energy brachytherapy source models that met the AAPM dosimetric prerequisites [Med. Phys. 25, 2269 (1998)] as of July 15, 2001. These include the following 125I sources: Amersham Health models 6702 and 6711, Best Medical model 2301, North American Scientific Inc. (NASI) model MED3631-A/M, Bebig/Theragenics model I25.S06, and the Imagyn Medical Technologies Inc. isostar model IS-12501. The 103Pd sources included are the Theragenics Corporation model 200 and NASI model MED3633. The AAPM recommends that the revised dose-calculation protocol and revised source-specific dose-rate distributions be adopted by all end users for clinical treatment planning of low energy brachytherapy interstitial sources. Depending upon the dose-calculation protocol and parameters currently used by individual physicists, adoption of this protocol may result in changes to patient dose calculations. These changes should be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist preceding implementation of the current protocol.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The American Association of Physicists in Medicine recommends that the reference dose-rate distribution, used for treatment planning for low-energy photon brachytherapy sources in routine clinical use, must be based on at least two independent determinations: one using experimentally measured dose rates and one using Monte Carlo simulation dosimetry techniques. In this work, we present an approach for developing consensus dosimetry parameters from various independent reference dosimetry studies for interstitial brachytherapy sources. This approach is applied to four recently published papers on the dosimetric properties of the BrachySeed Model LS-1 125I seed. Consensus values for the dose-rate constant, radial dose function, and anisotropy parameters are presented for the LS-1 Model 125I seed.
Two recently introduced GafChromic film models, HS and XR-T, have been developed as more sensitive and uniform alternatives to GafChromic MD-55-2 film. The HS model has been specifically designed for measurement of absorbed dose in high-energy photon beams (above 1 MeV), while the XR-T model has been introduced for dose measurements of low energy (0.1 MeV) photons. The goal of this study is to compare the sensitometric curves and estimated dosimetric uncertainties associated with seven different GafChromic film dosimetry systems for the two new film models. The densitometers tested are: LKB Pharmacia UltroScan XL, Molecular Dynamics Personal Densitometer, Nuclear Associates Radiochromic Densitometer Model 37-443, Photoelectron Corporation CMR-604, Laser Pro 16, Vidar VXR-16, and AGFA Arcus II document scanner. Pieces of film were exposed to different doses in a dose range from 0.5 to 50 Gy using 6 MV photon beam. Functional forms for dose vs net optical density have been determined for each of the GafChromic film-dosimetry systems used in this comparison. Two sources of uncertainties in dose measurements, governed by the experimental measurement and calibration curve fit procedure, have been compared for the densitometers used. Among the densitometers tested, it is found that for the HS film type the uncertainty caused by the experimental measurement varies from 1% to 3% while the calibration fit uncertainty ranges from 2% to 4% for doses above 5 Gy. Corresponding uncertainties for XR-T film model are somewhat higher and range from 1% to 5% for experimental and from 2% to 7% for the fit uncertainty estimates. Notwithstanding the significant variations in sensitivity, the studied densitometers exhibit very similar precision for GafChromic film based dose measurements above 5 Gy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.