SU-E-T-86: Comparison of Two Commercially Available Programs for the Evaluation of Delivered Daily Dose Using Cone Beam CT (CBCT)
Abstract
Purpose: In this study, two commercially available programs were compared for the evaluation of delivered daily dose using cone beam CT (CBCT). Methods: Thirty (n=30) patients previously treated in our clinic (10 prostate, 10 SBRT lung and 10 abdomen) were used in this study. The patients' plans were optimized and calculated using the Pinnacle treatment planning system. The daily CBCT scans were imported into Velocity and RayStation along with the corresponding planning CTs, structure sets and 3D dose distributions for each patient. The organs at risk (OAR) were contoured on each CBCT by the prescribing physician and were included in the evaluation of the daily delivered dose. Each CBCT was registered to the planning CT, once with rigid registration and then again, separately, with deformable registration. After registering each CBCT, the dose distribution from the planning CT was overlaid and the dose volume histograms (DVH) for the OAR and the planning target volumes (PTV) were calculated. Results: For prostate patients, we observed daily volume changes for the OARs. The DVH analysis for those patients showed variation in the sparing of the OARs while PTV coverage remained virtually unchanged using both Velocity and RayStation systems. Similar results were observed for abdominalmore »
- Authors:
-
- University of Texas Health Science Center, UTHSCSA, San Antonio, TX (United States)
- Publication Date:
- OSTI Identifier:
- 22339852
- Resource Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal Name:
- Medical Physics
- Additional Journal Information:
- Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0094-2405
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
- Subject:
- 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ABDOMEN; HEALTH HAZARDS; IMPORTS; LUNGS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; PROSTATE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIATION DOSES
Citation Formats
Tuohy, R, Bosse, C, Mavroidis, P, Shi, Z, Crownover, R, Papanikolaou, N, and Stathakis, S. SU-E-T-86: Comparison of Two Commercially Available Programs for the Evaluation of Delivered Daily Dose Using Cone Beam CT (CBCT). United States: N. p., 2014.
Web. doi:10.1118/1.4888416.
Tuohy, R, Bosse, C, Mavroidis, P, Shi, Z, Crownover, R, Papanikolaou, N, & Stathakis, S. SU-E-T-86: Comparison of Two Commercially Available Programs for the Evaluation of Delivered Daily Dose Using Cone Beam CT (CBCT). United States. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4888416
Tuohy, R, Bosse, C, Mavroidis, P, Shi, Z, Crownover, R, Papanikolaou, N, and Stathakis, S. 2014.
"SU-E-T-86: Comparison of Two Commercially Available Programs for the Evaluation of Delivered Daily Dose Using Cone Beam CT (CBCT)". United States. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4888416.
@article{osti_22339852,
title = {SU-E-T-86: Comparison of Two Commercially Available Programs for the Evaluation of Delivered Daily Dose Using Cone Beam CT (CBCT)},
author = {Tuohy, R and Bosse, C and Mavroidis, P and Shi, Z and Crownover, R and Papanikolaou, N and Stathakis, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: In this study, two commercially available programs were compared for the evaluation of delivered daily dose using cone beam CT (CBCT). Methods: Thirty (n=30) patients previously treated in our clinic (10 prostate, 10 SBRT lung and 10 abdomen) were used in this study. The patients' plans were optimized and calculated using the Pinnacle treatment planning system. The daily CBCT scans were imported into Velocity and RayStation along with the corresponding planning CTs, structure sets and 3D dose distributions for each patient. The organs at risk (OAR) were contoured on each CBCT by the prescribing physician and were included in the evaluation of the daily delivered dose. Each CBCT was registered to the planning CT, once with rigid registration and then again, separately, with deformable registration. After registering each CBCT, the dose distribution from the planning CT was overlaid and the dose volume histograms (DVH) for the OAR and the planning target volumes (PTV) were calculated. Results: For prostate patients, we observed daily volume changes for the OARs. The DVH analysis for those patients showed variation in the sparing of the OARs while PTV coverage remained virtually unchanged using both Velocity and RayStation systems. Similar results were observed for abdominal patients. In contrast, for SBRT lung patients, the DVH for the OARs and target were comparable to those from the initial treatment plan. Differences in organ volume and organ doses were also observed when comparing the daily fractions using deformable and rigid registrations. Conclusion: By using daily CBCT dose reconstruction, we proved PTV coverage for prostate and abdominal targets is adequate. However, there is significant dosimetric change for the OARs. For lung SBRT patients, the delivered daily dose for both PTV and OAR is comparable to the planned dose with no significant differences.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4888416},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/22339852},
journal = {Medical Physics},
issn = {0094-2405},
number = 6,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Sun Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}