Dose calculation accuracy of lung planning with a commercial IMRT treatment planning system.

The dose calculation accuracy of a commercial pencil beam IMRT planning system is evaluated by comparison with Monte Carlo calculations and measurements in an anthropomorphic phantom. The target volume is in the right lung and mediastinum and thus significant tissue inhomogeneities are present. The Monte Carlo code is an adaptation of the MCNP code and the measurements were made with TLD and film. Both the Monte Carlo code and the measurements show very good agreement with the treatment planning system except in regions where the dose is high and the electron density is low. In these regions the commercial system shows doses up to 10% higher than Monte Carlo and film. The average calculated dose for the CTV is 5% higher with the commercial system as compared to Monte Carlo.

Dosimetric comparison of patient setup strategies in stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer.

PURPOSE: In this work, the authors retrospectively compared the accumulated dose over the treatment course for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of lung cancer for three patient setup strategies. METHODS: Ten patients who underwent lung SBRT were selected for this study. At each fraction, patients were immobilized using a vacuum cushion and were CT scanned. Treatment plans were performed on the simulation CT. The planning target volume (PTV) was created by adding a 5-mm uniform margin to the internal target volume derived from the 4DCT. All plans were normalized such that 99% of the PTV received 60 Gy. The plan parameters were copied onto the daily CT images for dose recalculation under three setup scenarios: skin marker, bony structure, and soft tissue based alignments. The accumulated dose was calculated by summing the dose at each fraction along the trajectory of a voxel over the treatment course through deformable image registration of each CT with the planning CT. The accumulated doses were analyzed for the comparison of setup accuracy. RESULTS: The tumor volume receiving 60 Gy was 91.7 ± 17.9%, 74.1 ± 39.1%, and 99.6 ± 1.3% for setup using skin marks, bony structures, and soft tissue, respectively. The isodose line covering 100% of the GTV was 55.5 ± 7.1, 42.1 ± 16.0, and 64.3 ± 7.1 Gy, respectively. The corresponding average biologically effective dose of the tumor was 237.3 ± 29.4, 207.4 ± 61.2, and 258.3 ± 17.7 Gy, respectively. The differences in lung biologically effective dose, mean dose, and V20 between the setup scenarios were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results suggest that skin marks and bony structure are insufficient for aligning patients in lung SBRT. Soft tissue based alignment is needed to match the prescribed dose delivered to the tumors.

Assessment of planning target volume margins for intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the prostate gland: role of daily inter- and intrafraction motion.

PURPOSE: To determine planning target volume margins for prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy based on inter- and intrafraction motion using four daily localization techniques: three-point skin mark alignment, volumetric imaging with bony landmark registration, volumetric imaging with implanted fiducial marker registration, and implanted electromagnetic transponders (beacons) detection. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen patients who underwent definitive intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer formed the basis of this study. Each patient was implanted with three electromagnetic transponders and underwent a course of 39 treatment fractions. Daily localization was based on three-point skin mark alignment followed by transponder detection and patient repositioning. Transponder positioning was verified by volumetric imaging with cone-beam computed tomography of the pelvis. Relative motion between the prostate gland and bony anatomy was quantified by offline analyses of daily cone-beam computed tomography. Intratreatment organ motion was monitored continuously by the Calypso® System for quantification of intrafraction setup error. RESULTS: As expected, setup error (that is, inter- plus intrafraction motion, unless otherwise stated) was largest with skin mark alignment, requiring margins of 7.5 mm, 11.4 mm, and 16.3 mm, in the lateral (LR), longitudinal (SI), and vertical (AP) directions, respectively. Margin requirements accounting for intrafraction motion were smallest for transponder detection localization techniques, requiring margins of 1.4 mm (LR), 2.6 mm (SI), and 2.3 mm (AP). Bony anatomy alignment required 2.1 mm (LR), 9.4 mm (SI), and 10.5 mm (AP), whereas image-guided marker alignment required 2.8 mm (LR), 3.7 mm (SI), and 3.2 mm (AP). No marker migration was observed in the cohort. CONCLUSION: Clinically feasible, rapid, and reliable tools such as the electromagnetic transponder detection system for pretreatment target localization and, subsequently, intratreatment target location monitoring allow clinicians to reduce irradiated volumes and facilitate safe dose escalation, where appropriate.