Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy

Nesrin Dogan, Ivaylo B Mihaylov, Yan Wu, Paul J. Keall, Jeffrey V. Siebers, Michael P. Hagan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between Superposition/ Convolution (SC) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculated dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) prostate cancer intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to experimental (film) measurements and the implications for clinical treatments. Methods: Twenty-two prostate patients treated with an in-house SIB-IMRT protocol were selected. SC-based plans used for treatment were re-evaluated with EGS4-based MC calculations for treatment verification. Accuracy was evaluated with-respect-to film-based dosimetry. Comparisons used gamma (γ)-index, distance-to-agreement (DTA), and superimposed dose distributions. The treatment plans were also compared based on dose-volume indices and 3-D γ index for targets and critical structures. Results: Flat-phantom comparisons demonstrated that the MC algorithm predicted measurements better than the SC algorithm. The average PTVprostate D98 agreement between SC and MC was 1.2% ± 1.1. For rectum, the average differences in SC and MC calculated D50 ranged from -3.6% to 3.4%. For small bowel, there were up to 30.2% ± 40.7 (range: 0.2%, 115%) differences between SC and MC calculated average D50 index. For femurs, the differences in average D50 reached up to 8.6% ± 3.6 (range: 1.2%, 14.5%). For PTVprostate and PTVnodes, the average gamma scores were >95.0%. Conclusion: MC agrees better with film measurements than SC. Although, on average, SC-calculated doses agreed with MC calculations within the targets within 2%, there were deviations up to 5% for some patient's treatment plans. For some patients, the magnitude of such deviations might decrease the intended target dose levels that are required for the treatment protocol, placing the patients in different dose levels that do not satisfy the protocol dose requirements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number18
JournalRadiation Oncology
Volume4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 15 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate
Radiotherapy
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Film Dosimetry
Therapeutics
Clinical Protocols
Rectum
Femur
Prostatic Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy. / Dogan, Nesrin; Mihaylov, Ivaylo B; Wu, Yan; Keall, Paul J.; Siebers, Jeffrey V.; Hagan, Michael P.

In: Radiation Oncology, Vol. 4, 18, 15.06.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2a2bad2af4a242b090d1aa34617a896b,
title = "Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy",
abstract = "Background: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between Superposition/ Convolution (SC) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculated dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) prostate cancer intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to experimental (film) measurements and the implications for clinical treatments. Methods: Twenty-two prostate patients treated with an in-house SIB-IMRT protocol were selected. SC-based plans used for treatment were re-evaluated with EGS4-based MC calculations for treatment verification. Accuracy was evaluated with-respect-to film-based dosimetry. Comparisons used gamma (γ)-index, distance-to-agreement (DTA), and superimposed dose distributions. The treatment plans were also compared based on dose-volume indices and 3-D γ index for targets and critical structures. Results: Flat-phantom comparisons demonstrated that the MC algorithm predicted measurements better than the SC algorithm. The average PTVprostate D98 agreement between SC and MC was 1.2{\%} ± 1.1. For rectum, the average differences in SC and MC calculated D50 ranged from -3.6{\%} to 3.4{\%}. For small bowel, there were up to 30.2{\%} ± 40.7 (range: 0.2{\%}, 115{\%}) differences between SC and MC calculated average D50 index. For femurs, the differences in average D50 reached up to 8.6{\%} ± 3.6 (range: 1.2{\%}, 14.5{\%}). For PTVprostate and PTVnodes, the average gamma scores were >95.0{\%}. Conclusion: MC agrees better with film measurements than SC. Although, on average, SC-calculated doses agreed with MC calculations within the targets within 2{\%}, there were deviations up to 5{\%} for some patient's treatment plans. For some patients, the magnitude of such deviations might decrease the intended target dose levels that are required for the treatment protocol, placing the patients in different dose levels that do not satisfy the protocol dose requirements.",
author = "Nesrin Dogan and Mihaylov, {Ivaylo B} and Yan Wu and Keall, {Paul J.} and Siebers, {Jeffrey V.} and Hagan, {Michael P.}",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1186/1748-717X-4-18",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
journal = "Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1748-717X",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy

AU - Dogan, Nesrin

AU - Mihaylov, Ivaylo B

AU - Wu, Yan

AU - Keall, Paul J.

AU - Siebers, Jeffrey V.

AU - Hagan, Michael P.

PY - 2009/6/15

Y1 - 2009/6/15

N2 - Background: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between Superposition/ Convolution (SC) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculated dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) prostate cancer intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to experimental (film) measurements and the implications for clinical treatments. Methods: Twenty-two prostate patients treated with an in-house SIB-IMRT protocol were selected. SC-based plans used for treatment were re-evaluated with EGS4-based MC calculations for treatment verification. Accuracy was evaluated with-respect-to film-based dosimetry. Comparisons used gamma (γ)-index, distance-to-agreement (DTA), and superimposed dose distributions. The treatment plans were also compared based on dose-volume indices and 3-D γ index for targets and critical structures. Results: Flat-phantom comparisons demonstrated that the MC algorithm predicted measurements better than the SC algorithm. The average PTVprostate D98 agreement between SC and MC was 1.2% ± 1.1. For rectum, the average differences in SC and MC calculated D50 ranged from -3.6% to 3.4%. For small bowel, there were up to 30.2% ± 40.7 (range: 0.2%, 115%) differences between SC and MC calculated average D50 index. For femurs, the differences in average D50 reached up to 8.6% ± 3.6 (range: 1.2%, 14.5%). For PTVprostate and PTVnodes, the average gamma scores were >95.0%. Conclusion: MC agrees better with film measurements than SC. Although, on average, SC-calculated doses agreed with MC calculations within the targets within 2%, there were deviations up to 5% for some patient's treatment plans. For some patients, the magnitude of such deviations might decrease the intended target dose levels that are required for the treatment protocol, placing the patients in different dose levels that do not satisfy the protocol dose requirements.

AB - Background: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between Superposition/ Convolution (SC) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculated dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) prostate cancer intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to experimental (film) measurements and the implications for clinical treatments. Methods: Twenty-two prostate patients treated with an in-house SIB-IMRT protocol were selected. SC-based plans used for treatment were re-evaluated with EGS4-based MC calculations for treatment verification. Accuracy was evaluated with-respect-to film-based dosimetry. Comparisons used gamma (γ)-index, distance-to-agreement (DTA), and superimposed dose distributions. The treatment plans were also compared based on dose-volume indices and 3-D γ index for targets and critical structures. Results: Flat-phantom comparisons demonstrated that the MC algorithm predicted measurements better than the SC algorithm. The average PTVprostate D98 agreement between SC and MC was 1.2% ± 1.1. For rectum, the average differences in SC and MC calculated D50 ranged from -3.6% to 3.4%. For small bowel, there were up to 30.2% ± 40.7 (range: 0.2%, 115%) differences between SC and MC calculated average D50 index. For femurs, the differences in average D50 reached up to 8.6% ± 3.6 (range: 1.2%, 14.5%). For PTVprostate and PTVnodes, the average gamma scores were >95.0%. Conclusion: MC agrees better with film measurements than SC. Although, on average, SC-calculated doses agreed with MC calculations within the targets within 2%, there were deviations up to 5% for some patient's treatment plans. For some patients, the magnitude of such deviations might decrease the intended target dose levels that are required for the treatment protocol, placing the patients in different dose levels that do not satisfy the protocol dose requirements.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67649983179&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67649983179&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1748-717X-4-18

DO - 10.1186/1748-717X-4-18

M3 - Article

C2 - 19527515

AN - SCOPUS:67649983179

VL - 4

JO - Radiation Oncology

JF - Radiation Oncology

SN - 1748-717X

M1 - 18

ER -