PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15175868

Verification of IMRT: techniques and problems.

Ludwig Bogner·Josef Scherer·Marius Treutwein·Matthias Hartmann·Franz Gum·Axel Amediek
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy) verification techniques are reviewed together with investigations demonstrating the intrinsic verification problems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Different IMRT verification procedures for either class solutions or individual patients are demonstrated. Among the latter are techniques like fluence or three-dimensional (3-D) dose distribution verification within a transfer phantom. Different radiographic films and absolute dose probes are investigated for their suitability. Finally, Monte Carlo techniques (XVMC/VEF) are used for error detection and IMRT verification. RESULTS: During introduction of clinical IMRT for head and neck (H and N) tumors, we concurrently applied fluence, relative, and absolute dose measurement. While fluence and relative dose are in rather good agreement with calculations, absolute dose is always low when compared to the TPS (TMS 6.1A, Nucletron B.V.) by 5-7%. This deviation seems to depend not on the number of segments, but can strongly depend on MLC misalignment. Further investigations have revealed the importance of a detailed commissioning of the TPS down to the small-field range using diamond or diode probes and its detailed verification. In addition, simple tests have shown that dose calculation approximations in the IMRT option of TMS are one major source of the dose deviation. XVMC/VEF does not use such approximations. CONCLUSION: The procedure starts with a detailed TPS commissioning and verification process. Different verification methods are recommended during clinical IMRT implementation phase, in order to locate sources of error. Later on, a minimal program could consist of a fluence or relative dose verification procedure with few films and absolute dose measurement, followed by an intensive MLC quality assurance (QA). Inverse Monte Carlo systems, like IMCO(++)/IKO or Hyperion, seem to be able to reduce the effort.

Explore related subjects

Head and Neck NeoplasmsHumansPhantoms, ImagingRadiographyRadiotherapyRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ludwig Bogner, Josef Scherer, Marius Treutwein, Matthias Hartmann, Franz Gum, Axel Amediek. 2004. Verification of IMRT: techniques and problems.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-004-1219-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Novel correction methods as alternatives for the six-dimensional correction in CyberKnife treatment.

PURPOSE: During CyberKnife treatment, the 6D correction method is used to correct patient positional errors, including rotational ones. We developed novel correction methods for translating rotational errors into 3D, with the aim of making their correction safer than with 6D correction and as accurate as possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: These novel correction methods were named the gravity correction and the beam correction method. With the gravity correction method, the beam coordinates after rotation are corrected to match the tumor gravity point with 3D translational components translated by the affine transformation matrix. For beam correction, the beam coordinates are corrected to match the translated tumor target coordinates for each treatment beam. The effectiveness and impact of these methods were demonstrated by means of dose volume histogram (DVH) shift evaluation. For analysis of the treatment data of 10 patients, the treatment beam was rotated in three patterns of rotational degree and corrected with the two methods. The amount of tumor gravity point shift in the rotation was also calculated, and the deterioration of the tumor DVH was studied. RESULTS: In the case of +/-1 degrees , +/-3 degrees , and +/-1 degrees rotation for the X, Y, Z axes, the tumor gravity point of all 10 patients moved around 2.4 mm on average. Tumor DVH was deteriorated worse as the distance between the tumor gravity point and the rotational origin became more distant. With the planned D90, which represents the dose above which 90% of the tumor volume is irradiated set at 100%, the postrotational average D90 dose deteriorated to 96.12% after (+/-1 degrees , +/-3 degrees , and +/-1 degrees ) rotation. The dose was improved to 99.9% (SD +/- 0.41) after the gravity correction, or to 99.87% (SD +/- 0.55) after the beam correction. CONCLUSION: The correction methods developed by us can correct tumor DVH findings to the same degree as with 6D correction and are safer because the movement required for correcting the linac is not rotational but translational only.

Head and Neck Neoplasms↗
PubMed2007

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: an update.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), an advent of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT), has excited the profession of radiation oncology more than any other new invention since the introduction of the linear accelerator. Approximately 1000 articles have been published on this topic to date, more than 200 of which focus on head and neck cancer. IMRT is based on computer-optimized treatment planning and a computer-controlled treatment delivery system. The computer-driven technology generates dose distributions that sharply conform to the tumor target while minimizing the dose delivered to the surrounding normal tissues. The high dose volume that tailors to the 3D configuration of the tumor along with the ability to spare the nearby normal tissues allows the option of tumor dose escalation. The head and neck region is an ideal target for this new technology for several reasons. First, IMRT offers the potential for improved tumor control through delivery of high doses to the target volume. Second, because of sharp dose gradients, IMRT results in the relative sparing of normal structures, such as the parotid glands, in the head and neck region. Third, organ motion is virtually absent in the head and neck region so, with proper immobilization, treatment can be accurately delivered. Although this is a relatively new technology, single-institution retrospective studies show better dosimetric profiles compared with conventional radiation techniques, as well as excellent clinical results. Salivary gland sparing using IMRT has also resulted in reduced incidence and severity of xerostomia, and this has been tested in a randomized trial against conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal cancer. The results do confirm that IMRT does decrease xerostomia compared with conventional radiotherapy.

Head and Neck Neoplasms↗