[Evaluation of a Post-analysis Method for Cumulative Dose Distribution in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy].

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a post-analysis method for cumulative dose distribution in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) . METHOD: VMAT is capable of acquiring respiratory signals derived from projection images and machine parameters based on machine logs during VMAT delivery. Dose distributions were reconstructed from the respiratory signals and machine parameters in the condition where respiratory signals were without division, divided into 4 and 10 phases. The dose distribution of each respiratory phase was calculated on the planned four-dimensional CT (4DCT). Summation of the dose distributions was carried out using deformable image registration (DIR), and cumulative dose distributions were compared with those of the corresponding plans. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Without division, dose differences between cumulative distribution and plan were not significant. In the condition where respiratory signals were divided, dose differences were observed over dose in cranial region and under dose in caudal region of planning target volume (PTV). Differences between 4 and 10 phases were not significant. CONCLUSION: The present method was feasible for evaluating cumulative dose distribution in VMAT-SBRT using 4DCT and DIR.

Evaluation of In Vivo Volumetric Dosimetry for Prostate Cancer Using Electronic Portal Imaging Device.

PURPOSE: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is capable of acquiring projection images using electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Commercial EPID-based dosimetry software, dosimetry check (DC), allows in vivo dosimetry using projection images. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vivo dosimetry for prostate cancer using VMAT. METHOD: VMAT plans were generated for eight patients with prostate cancer using treatment planning system (TPS), and patient quality assurances (QAs) were carried out with phantom. We analyzed five plans as phantom study and five plans as patient study. Projection images were acquired during VMAT delivery. DC converted acquired images into fluence images and used a pencil beam algorithm to calculate dose distributions delivered on the CT images of the phantom and the patients. We evaluated isocenter point doses and gamma analysis in both studies and dose indexes of planning target volume (PTV), bladder and rectum in patient study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Dose differences at the isocenter were less than a criterion in both studies. Pass rates of the gamma analysis were less than a criterion by two plans in the phantom study. Dose indexes of reconstructed distribution were lower than original plans and standard deviations of PTV in reconstructed distribution were larger than original plans. The errors were caused by some issues, such as the commissioning of DC, variations in patient anatomy, and patient positioning. CONCLUSION: The method was feasible to non-invasively perform in vivo dose evaluation for prostate cancer using VMAT.

[Dose reconstruction using respiratory signals and machine parameters during treatment in stereotactic body radiotherapy].

PURPOSE: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique capable of acquiring projection images during treatment. The purpose of this study was to reconstruct the dose distribution from respiratory signals and machine parameters acquired during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS: The treatment plans created for VMAT-SBRT included the constraint of 1 mm/degree in multileaf collimator (MLC) for a moving phantom and three patients with lung tumors. The respiratory signals were derived from projection images acquired during VMAT delivery, while the machine parameters were derived from machine logs. The respiratory signals and machine parameters were then linked along with the gantry angle. With this data, the dose distribution of each respiratory phase was calculated on the planned four-dimensional CT (4D CT). The doses at the isocenter, the point of max dose and the centroid of the target were compared with those of the corresponding plans. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In the phantom study, the maximum dose difference between the plan and "in-treatment" results was -0.4% at the centroid of the target. In the patient study, the difference was -1.8 ± 0.4% at the centroid of the target. Dose differences of the evaluated points between 4 and 10 phases were not significant. CONCLUSION: The present method successfully reconstructed the dose distribution using the respiratory signals and machine parameters acquired during treatment. This is a feasible method for verifying the actual dose for a moving target.