Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jan;39(1):437-43.
doi: 10.1118/1.3670374.

Motion-compensated estimation of delivered dose during external beam radiation therapy: implementation in Philips' Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system

Shyam Bharat  1 , Parag Parikh, Camille Noel, Michael Meltsner, Karl Bzdusek, Michael Kaus
Affiliations

Motion-compensated estimation of delivered dose during external beam radiation therapy: implementation in Philips' Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system

Shyam Bharat et al. Med Phys. 2012 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: Recent research efforts investigating dose escalation techniques for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have demonstrated great benefit when high-dose hypofractionated treatment schemes are implemented. The use of these paradigms emphasizes the importance of smaller treatment margins to avoid high dose to surrounding normal tissue or organs at risk (OARs). However, tighter margins may lead to underdosage of the target due to the presence of organ motion. It is important to characterize organ motion and possibly account for it during treatment delivery. The need for real-time localization of dynamic targets has encouraged the use and development of more continuous motion monitoring systems such as kilo-voltage/fluoroscopic imaging, electromagnetic tracking, and optical monitoring systems.

Methods: This paper presents the implementation of an algorithm to quantify translational and rotational interfractional and intrafractional prostate motion and compute the dosimetric effects of these motion patterns. The estimated delivered dose is compared with the static plan dose to evaluate the success of delivering the plan in the presence of prostate motion. The method is implemented on a commercial treatment planning system (Pinnacle(3), Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Philips Healthcare) and is termed delivered dose investigational tool (DiDIT). The DiDIT implementation in Pinnacle(3) is validated by comparisons with previously published results. Finally, different workflows are discussed with respect to the potential use of this tool in clinical treatment planning.

Results: The DiDIT dose estimation process took approximately 5-20 min (depending on the number of fractions analyzed) on a Pinnacle(3) 9.100 research version running on a Dell M90 system (Dell, Inc., Round Rock, TX, USA) equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor (Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The DiDIT implementation in Pinnacle(3) was found to be in agreement with previously published results, on the basis of the percent dose difference (PDD). This metric was also utilized to compare plan dose versus delivered dose, for prostate targets in three clinically acceptable treatment plans.

Conclusions: This paper presents results from the implementation of an algorithm on a commercially available treatment planning system that quantifies the dosimetric effects of interfractional and intrafractional motion in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer. The implementation of this algorithm within a commercial treatment planning system such as Pinnacle(3) enables easy deployment in the existing clinical workflow. The results of the PDD tests validate the implementation of the DiDIT algorithm in Pinnacle(3), in comparison with previously published results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The workflow of the DiDIT algorithm.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Histograms of PDD values between the results of DiDIT and SWIFTER, for the 5 mm margin plans (b) histograms of PDD values between the results of DiDIT and SWIFTER, for the 3 mm margin plans and (c) histograms of PDD values between the results of DiDIT and SWIFTER, for the 0 mm margin plans.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) Histograms of PDD values between the original plan dose distribution and the results of DiDIT, for the 5 mm margin plans (b) Histograms of PDD values between the original plan dose distribution and the results of DiDIT, for the 3 mm margin plans and (c) histograms of PDD values between the original plan dose distribution and the results of DiDIT, for the 0 mm margin plans.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) DVHs for the 5 mm margin plans (b) DVHs for the 3 mm margin plans and (c) DVHs for the 0 mm margin plans.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pollack A. et al., “Prostate cancer radiation dose response: Results of the M.D. Anderson phase III randomized trial,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys., 53, 1097–1105 (2002).10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02829-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zietman A. et al., “Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: A randomized controlled trial,” JAMA 294, 1233–1239 (2005).10.1001/jama.294.10.1233 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Molinelli S. et al., “Simultaneous tumour dose escalation and liver sparing in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver tumours due to CTV-to-PTV margin reduction,” Radiother. Oncol. 87, 432–438 (2008).10.1016/j.radonc.2007.11.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sandler H. et al., “Reduction in patient-reported acute morbidity in prostate cancer patients treated with 81-Gy Intensity-modulated radiotherapy using reduced planning target volume margins and electromagnetic tracking: assessing the impact of margin reduction study,” Urology 75, 1004–1008 (2010).10.1016/j.urology.2009.10.072 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Skarsgard D. et al., “Planning target volume margins for prostate radiotherapy using daily electronic portal imaging and implanted fiducial markers,” Radiat. Oncol. 10, 52–62 (2010).10.1186/1748-717X-5-52 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types