Radiation dose uncertainty and correction for a mouse orthotopic and xenograft irradiation model.

PURPOSE: In animal irradiation models, reported dose can vary significantly from the actual doses delivered. We describe an effective method for in vivo dose verification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mice bearing commercially-available cell line or patient-derived tumor cell orthotopic or flank xenografts were irradiated using a 160 kVp, 25 mA X-ray source. Entrance dose was evaluated using optically-stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) and exit dose was assessed using radiochromic film dosimetry. RESULTS: Tumor position within the irradiation field was validated using external fiducial markers. The average entrance dose in orthotopic tumors from 10 OSLDs placed on two different animal irradiation days was 514 ± 37 cGy (range: 437-545). Exit dose measurements taken from seven radiochromic films on two separate days were 341 ± 21 cGy (a 34% attenuation). Flank tumor irradiation doses measured by OSLD were 368 ± 9 cGy compared to exit doses of 330 cGy measured by radiochromic film. CONCLUSION: Variations related to the irradiation model can lead to significant under or overdosing in vivo which can affect tumor control and/or biologic endpoints that are dose-dependent. We recommend that dose measurements be determined empirically based on the mouse model and irradiator used and dose compensation adjustments performed to ensure correct and appropriate doses.

Dosimetric errors during treatment of centrally located lung tumors with stereotactic body radiation therapy: Monte Carlo evaluation of tissue inhomogeneity corrections.

Early experience with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of centrally located lung tumors indicated increased rate of high-grade toxicity in the lungs. These clinical results were based on treatment plans that were computed using pencil beam-like algorithms and without tissue inhomogeneity corrections. In this study, we evaluated the dosimetric errors in plans with and without inhomogeneity corrections and with planning target volumes (PTVs) that were within the zone of the proximal bronchial tree (BT). For 10 patients, the PTV, lungs, and sections of the BT either inside or within 2cm of the PTV were delineated. Two treatment plans were generated for each patient using the following dose-calculation methods: (1) pencil beam (PB) algorithm without inhomogeneity correction (IC) (PB - IC) and (2) PB with inhomogeneity correction (PB + IC). Both plans had identical beam geometry but different beam segment shapes and monitor units (MU) to achieve similar conformal dose coverage of PTV. To obtain the baseline dose distributions, each plan was recalculated using a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm by keeping MUs the same in the respective plans. The median maximum dose to the proximal BT and PTV dose coverage in the PB + IC plans were overestimated by 8% and 11%, respectively. However, the median maximum dose to the proximal BT and PTV dose coverage in PB - IC plans were underestimated by 15% and 9%. Similar trends were observed in low-dose regions of the lung within the irradiated volume. Our study indicates that dosimetric bias introduced by unit tissue density plans cannot be characterized as underestimation or overestimation of dose without taking the tumor location into account. This issue should be considered when analyzing clinical toxicity data from early lung SBRT trials that utilized unit tissue density for dose calculations.

Supine craniospinal irradiation setup with two spine fields.

Craniospinal irradiation is an integral part of treatment for a number of cancers. Typically, patients are positioned prone, which allows visualization of field matches. However, a supine position allows better airway access for patients requiring anesthesia, and is more comfortable for patients. One potential difficulty with supine positioning occurs when the patient is tall and requires matching 2 spine fields. We describe a technique to match the spine fields using light fields on the bottom of the treatment table, and verified the approach on a phantom. The accuracy of the technique is demonstrated for the first 4 patients, with the majority of field gaps and overlaps below our clinical tolerance of 2 mm.