Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Radiobiological and Dosimetric Analysis of Daily Megavoltage CT Registration on Adaptive Radiotherapy with Helical Tomotherapy
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment (Trykt), ISSN 1533-0346, E-ISSN 1533-0338, Vol. 10, no 1, p. 1-13Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Pre-treatment patient repositioning in highly conformal image-guided radiation therapy modalities is a prerequisite for reducing setup uncertainties. In Helical Tomotherapy (HT) treatment, a megavoltage CT (MVCT) image is usually acquired to evaluate daily changes in the patient's internal anatomy and setup position. This MVCT image is subsequently compared to the kilovoltage CT (kVCT) study that was used for dosimetric planning, by applying a registration process. This study aims at investigating the expected effect of patient setup correction using the Hi-Art tomotherapy system by employing radiobiological measures such as the biologically effective uniform dose (<(D)double over bar>) and the complication-free tumor control probability (P.). A new module of the Tomotherapy software (Tomo Therapy, Inc, Madison, WI) called Planned Adaptive is employed in this study. In this process the delivered dose can be calculated by using the sinogram for each delivered fraction and the registered MVCT image set that corresponds to the patient's position and anatomical distribution for that fraction. In this study, patients treated for lung, pancreas and prostate carcinomas are evaluated by this method. For each cancer type, a Helical Tomotherapy plan was developed. In each cancer case, two dose distributions were calculated using the MVCT image sets before and after the patient setup correction. The fractional dose distributions were added and renormalized to the total number of fractions planned. The dosimetric and radiobiological differences of the dose distributions with and without patient setup correction were calculated. By using common statistical measures of the dose distributions and the P, and <(D)double over bar> concepts and plotting the tissue response probabilities vs. <(D)double over bar> a more comprehensive comparison was performed based on radiobiological measures. For the lung cancer case, at the clinically prescribed dose levels of the dose distributions, with and without patient setup correction, the complication-free tumor control probabilities, P. are 48.5% and 48.9% for a <(D)double over bar>(ITV) of 53.3 Gy. The respective total control probabilities, P(B) are 56.3% and 56.5%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, P(I) are 7.9% and 7.5%. For the pancreas cancer case, at the prescribed dose levels of the two dose distributions, the P. values are 53.7% and 45.7% for a <(D)double over bar>(ITV) of 54.7 Gy and 53.8 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 53.7% and 45.8%, whereas the corresponding P, values are similar to 0.0% and 0.1%. For the prostate cancer case, at the prescribed dose levels of the two dose distributions, the P. values are 10.9% for a <(D)double over bar>(ITV) of 75.2 Gy and 11.9% for a D(ITV) of 75.4 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 14.5% and 15.3%, whereas the corresponding P, values are 3.6% and 3.4%. Our analysis showed that the very good daily patient setup and dose delivery were very close to the intended ones. With the exception of the pancreas cancer case, the deviations observed between the dose distributions with and without patient setup correction were within +/- 2% in terms of P(+). In the radiobiologically optimized dose distributions, the role of patient setup correction using MVCT images could appear to be more important than in the cases of dosimetrically optimized treatment plans were the individual tissue radiosensitivities are not precisely considered.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 10, no 1, p. 1-13
Keyword [en]
Helical Tomotherapy, MVCT, Biologically effective uniform dose, Complication-free tumor control, Dose-response relations, Radiobiological evaluation
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-67362ISI: 000286483300001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-67362DiVA, id: diva2:470150
Note
authorCount :8Available from: 2011-12-28 Created: 2011-12-28 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mavroidis, Panayiotis
By organisation
Department of Physics
In the same journal
Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment (Trykt)
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 46 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf