skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-592: Relationship Between Dose of Distribution and Area of Segment Fields Among Different Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Planning in Cervix Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: In premise of uninfluenced to dose distribution of tumor target and organ at risk(OAR) in cervical cancer,area of segment fields was changed to increase efficacy and optimize treatment method by designing different plan of intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT). Methods: 12 cases of cervical cancer were confirmed in pathology and treated with step and shoot IMRT. Dose of PTV was 50Gy/25fractions. Every patient was designed 9 treatment plans of IMRT by Pinnacle 8.0m planning system,each plan was used with 9 beams of uniform distribution and fixing incidence direction(200°,240°,280°,320°,0°,40°,80°,120°and 160°respectively),and designed for delivery on Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. All plans were optimized with the direct machine parameter optimization(DMPO) algorithm using the same set of optimization objectives. Number of maximum segment field was defined at 80 and minimum MU in each segment was 5MU,and minimal segment area was 2*1cm{sup 2},2*2cm{sup 2},3*3cm{sup 2},4*4cm{sup 2},5*5cm{sup 2},6*6cm{sup 2},7*7cm{sup 2},8*8cm{sup 2}and 9*9cm{sup 2},respectively.Coverage,homogeneity and conformity of PTV,sparing of OAR, MU and number of segment were compared. Results: In this group, mean volume of PTV was 916.8±228.7 cm{sup 3}. Compared with the area of minimal segment field increased from 2*1cm{sup 2} to 9*9 cm{sup 2},the number of mean MU was decreased from 1405±170 to 490±47 and the numbermore » of segment field was reduced from 76±4 to 39±7 respectively(p<0.05). When the limit of minimal segment area was increased from 2*1cm{sup 2} to 7*7 cm{sup 2},dose distribution of PTV,OAR,CI,HI and V{sub 2} {sub 3} were not different (p>0.05),but when the minimal segment area was 8*8 cm{sup 2} and 9*9 cm{sup 2},they were changed compared with 7*7 cm{sup 2} and below(p<0.05). Conclusion: The minimal segment field of IMRT plan designed by Pinnacle 8.0m planning system in cervical carcinoma should be enlarge reasonably and minimal segment area of 7*7 cm{sup 2} was recommend.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Hebei Medical University Fourth Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei (China)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22369709
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ALGORITHMS; CARCINOMAS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; OPTIMIZATION; PATHOLOGY; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Qiu, R, Wang, Y, Cao, Y, Zhang, R, Shang, K, and Chi, Z. SU-E-T-592: Relationship Between Dose of Distribution and Area of Segment Fields Among Different Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Planning in Cervix Cancer. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4888928.
Qiu, R, Wang, Y, Cao, Y, Zhang, R, Shang, K, & Chi, Z. SU-E-T-592: Relationship Between Dose of Distribution and Area of Segment Fields Among Different Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Planning in Cervix Cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4888928.
Qiu, R, Wang, Y, Cao, Y, Zhang, R, Shang, K, and Chi, Z. 2014. "SU-E-T-592: Relationship Between Dose of Distribution and Area of Segment Fields Among Different Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Planning in Cervix Cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4888928.
@article{osti_22369709,
title = {SU-E-T-592: Relationship Between Dose of Distribution and Area of Segment Fields Among Different Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Planning in Cervix Cancer},
author = {Qiu, R and Wang, Y and Cao, Y and Zhang, R and Shang, K and Chi, Z},
abstractNote = {Purpose: In premise of uninfluenced to dose distribution of tumor target and organ at risk(OAR) in cervical cancer,area of segment fields was changed to increase efficacy and optimize treatment method by designing different plan of intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT). Methods: 12 cases of cervical cancer were confirmed in pathology and treated with step and shoot IMRT. Dose of PTV was 50Gy/25fractions. Every patient was designed 9 treatment plans of IMRT by Pinnacle 8.0m planning system,each plan was used with 9 beams of uniform distribution and fixing incidence direction(200°,240°,280°,320°,0°,40°,80°,120°and 160°respectively),and designed for delivery on Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. All plans were optimized with the direct machine parameter optimization(DMPO) algorithm using the same set of optimization objectives. Number of maximum segment field was defined at 80 and minimum MU in each segment was 5MU,and minimal segment area was 2*1cm{sup 2},2*2cm{sup 2},3*3cm{sup 2},4*4cm{sup 2},5*5cm{sup 2},6*6cm{sup 2},7*7cm{sup 2},8*8cm{sup 2}and 9*9cm{sup 2},respectively.Coverage,homogeneity and conformity of PTV,sparing of OAR, MU and number of segment were compared. Results: In this group, mean volume of PTV was 916.8±228.7 cm{sup 3}. Compared with the area of minimal segment field increased from 2*1cm{sup 2} to 9*9 cm{sup 2},the number of mean MU was decreased from 1405±170 to 490±47 and the number of segment field was reduced from 76±4 to 39±7 respectively(p<0.05). When the limit of minimal segment area was increased from 2*1cm{sup 2} to 7*7 cm{sup 2},dose distribution of PTV,OAR,CI,HI and V{sub 2} {sub 3} were not different (p>0.05),but when the minimal segment area was 8*8 cm{sup 2} and 9*9 cm{sup 2},they were changed compared with 7*7 cm{sup 2} and below(p<0.05). Conclusion: The minimal segment field of IMRT plan designed by Pinnacle 8.0m planning system in cervical carcinoma should be enlarge reasonably and minimal segment area of 7*7 cm{sup 2} was recommend.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4888928},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = 2014,
month = 6
}
  • The aim of this study is to compare Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) plan of prostate cancer patients with different dose verification systems in dosimetric aspects and to compare these systems with each other in terms of reliability, applicability and application time. Dosimetric control processes of IMRT plan of three prostate cancer patients were carried out using thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD), ion chamber (IC) and 2D Array detector systems. The difference between the dose values obtained from the dosimetric systems and treatment planning system (TPS) were found to be about % 5. For the measured (TLD) and calculated (TPS) doses %3more » percentage differences were obtained for the points close to center while percentage differences increased at the field edges. It was found that TLD and IC measurements will increase the precision and reliability of the results of 2D Array.« less
  • Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ({sup 18}F-FDG-PET)–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer may potentially improve local control. We evaluated the feasibility of this approach using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and compared these plans with fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) focal dose escalation plans. Materials and methods: An initial study of 20 patients compared RapidArc with fixed-field IMRT using standard dose prescriptions. From this cohort, 10 were included in a dose escalation planning study. Dose escalation was applied to {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–positive regions in the primary tumor at dose levels of 5% (DL1), 10% (DL2), and 15% (DL3) above standard radical dose (65 Gymore » in 30 fractions). Fixed-field IMRT and double-arc RapidArc plans were generated for each dataset. Dose-volume histograms were used for plan evaluation and comparison. The Paddick conformity index (CI{sub Paddick}) and monitor units (MU) for each plan were recorded and compared. Both IMRT and RapidArc produced clinically acceptable plans and achieved planning objectives for target volumes. Dose conformity was significantly better in the RapidArc plans, with lower CI{sub Paddick} scores in both primary (PTV1) and elective (PTV2) planning target volumes (largest difference in PTV1 at DL3; 0.81 ± 0.03 [RapidArc] vs. 0.77 ± 0.07 [IMRT], p = 0.04). Maximum dose constraints for spinal cord and brainstem were not exceeded in both RapidArc and IMRT plans, but mean doses were higher with RapidArc (by 2.7 ± 1 Gy for spinal cord and 1.9 ± 1 Gy for brainstem). Contralateral parotid mean dose was lower with RapidArc, which was statistically significant at DL1 (29.0 vs. 29.9 Gy, p = 0.01) and DL2 (29.3 vs. 30.3 Gy, p = 0.03). MU were reduced by 39.8–49.2% with RapidArc (largest difference at DL3, 641 ± 94 vs. 1261 ± 118, p < 0.01). {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer is feasible with RapidArc. Compared with conventional fixed-field IMRT, RapidArc can achieve better dose conformity, improve contralateral parotid sparing, and uses fewer MU.« less
  • To study the effect of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf widths (standard MLC [sMLC] width of 10 mm and micro-MLC [mMLC] width of 4 mm) on intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical cancer. Between January 2010 and August 2010, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 12 patients with cervical cancer. The treatment plans for all patients were generated with the same machine setup parameters and optimization methods in a treatment planning system (TPS) based on 2 commercial Elekta MLC devices. The dose distribution for the planning tumor volume (PTV), the dose sparing for organs at risk (OARs), the monitor units (MUs), andmore » the number of IMRT segments were evaluated. For the delivery efficiency, the MUs were significantly higher in the sMLC-IMRT plan than in the mMLC-IMRT plan (802 ± 56.9 vs 702 ± 56.7; p < 0.05). The number of segments in the plans were 58.75 ± 1.8 and 59 ± 1.04 (p > 0.05). For the planning quality, the conformity index (CI) between the 2 paired IMRT plans with the mMLC and the sMLC did not differ significantly (average: 0.817 ± 0.024 vs 0.810 ± 0.028; p > 0.05). The differences of the homogeneity index (HI) between the 2 paired plans were statistically significant (average: 1.122 ± 0.010 vs 1.132 ± 0.014; p < 0.01). For OARs, the rectum, bladder, small intestine, and bony pelvis were evaluated in terms of V{sub 10}, V{sub 20}, V{sub 30}, and V{sub 40}, percentage of contoured OAR volumes receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy, respectively, and the mean dose (D{sub mean}) received. The IMRT plans with the mMLC protected the OARs better than the plans with the sMLC. There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in evaluated parameters between the 2 paired IMRT plans, except for V{sub 30} and V{sub 40} of the rectum and V{sub 10}, V{sub 20}, V{sub 40}, and D{sub mean} of the bladder. IMRT plans with the mMLC showed advantages over the plans with the sMLC in dose homogeneity for targets, dose sparing of OARs, and fewer MUs in cervical cancer.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the performances of three commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) optimization regarding cervical cancer. Methods: For twenty cervical cancer patients, three IMRT plans were retrospectively re-planned: one with Pinnacle TPS,one with Oncentra TPS and on with Eclipse TPS. The total prescribed dose was 50.4 Gy delivered for PTV and 58.8 Gy for PTVnd by simultaneous integrated boost technique. The treatments were delivered using the Varian 23EX accelerator. All optimization schemes generated clinically acceptable plans. They were evaluated based on target coverage, homogeneity (HI) and conformity (CI). The organs at risk (OARs) were analyzedmore » according to the percent volume under some doses and the maximum doses. The statistical method of the collected data of variance analysis was used to compare the difference among the quality of plans. Results: IMRT with Eclipse provided significant better HI, CI and all the parameters of PTV. However, the trend was not extension to the PTVnd, it was still significant better at mean dose, D50% and D98%, but plans with Oncentra showed significant better in the hight dosage volume, such as maximum dose and D2%. For the bladder wall, there were not notable difference among three groups, although Pinnacle and Oncentra systems provided a little lower dose sparing at V50Gy of bladder and rectal wall and V40Gy of bladder wall, respectively. V40Gy of rectal wall (p=0.037), small intestine (p=0.001 for V30Gy, p=0.010 for maximum dose) and V50Gy of right-femoral head (p=0.019) from Eclipse plans showed significant better than other groups. Conclusion: All SIB-IMRT plans were clinically acceptable which were generated by three commercial TPSs. The plans with Eclipse system showed advantages over the plans with Oncentra and Pinnacle system in the overwhelming majority of the dose coverage for targets and dose sparing of OARs in cervical cancer.« less
  • Purpose: We aimed to evaluate an optimization algorithm designed to find the most favorable points to position an ionization chamber (IC) for quality assurance dose measurements of patients treated for prostate cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and fields up to 10 cm x 10 cm. Methods and Materials: Three cylindrical ICs (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) were used with volumes of 0.6 cc, 0.125 cc, and 0.015 cc. Dose measurements were made in a plastic phantom (PMMA) at 287 optimized points. An algorithm was designed to search for points with the lowest dose gradient. Measurements were made also at 39 nonoptimized points.more » Results were normalized to a reference homogeneous field introducing a dose ratio factor, which allowed us to compare measured vs. calculated values as percentile dose ratio factor deviations {delta}F (%). A tolerance range of {delta}F (%) of {+-}3% was considered. Results: Half of the {delta}F (%) values obtained at nonoptimized points were outside the acceptable range. Values at optimized points were widely spread for the largest IC (i.e., 60% of the results outside the tolerance range), whereas for the two small-volume ICs, only 14.6% of the results were outside the tolerance interval. No differences were observed when comparing the two small ICs. Conclusions: The presented optimization algorithm is a useful tool to determine the best IC in-field position for optimal dose measurement conditions. A good agreement between calculated and measured doses can be obtained by positioning small volume chambers at carefully selected points in the field. Large chambers may be unreliable even in optimized points for IMRT fields {<=}10 cm x 10 cm.« less