Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology 2/2014

01-02-2014 | Research Article

To evaluate the accuracy of dynamic versus static IMRT delivery using portal dosimetry

Authors: S. Clemente, R. Caivano, M. Cozzolino, G. Califano, C. Chiumento, A. Fiorentino, V. Fusco

Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

To evaluate the delivery accuracy of dynamic (DMLC) and static (SMLC) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques using portal dosimetry (PD) in Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System.

Materials and methods

Seven DMLC IMRT Head and Neck plans were retrospectively generated for the study using SMLC mode at 20, 10 and 5 levels of intensity (SMLC20, SMLC10, SMLC5). Dosimetric verifications performed by PD on a total of 107 fields were evaluated using the gamma index (maximum γ max, average γ avg, percentage of points with γ % ≤ 1). The images were acquired at a source-detector distance of 100 cm at gantry zero degree and also at clinically planned gantry angles.

Results

For both modes, measurements are within acceptable criteria. γ % ≤ 1 improves by increasing SMLC levels (+3.4 % from SMLC5 to SMLC20, p < 0.001) and using DMLC (+3.9 % and +0.6 % compared to SMLC5 and SMLC20, respectively, p < 0.001). Also γ max parameter improves significantly by increasing SMLC levels (+22 % from SMLC5 to SMLC20) and using DMLC (+34 % and +16 % compared to SMLC5 and SMLC20, respectively). The effect of the gantry rotation influences the delivery accuracy by up to −7 % (p < 0.05). The effect of leaves travelling direction was almost negligible (1 %).

Conclusions

A good agreement between calculated and measured fluences was obtained for DMLC and SMLC techniques at higher intensity levels; however, DMLC delivery ensures the best reproduction of computed fluence maps. The gantry rotation influences the delivery accuracy in particular for SMLC modes at lower intensity levels.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Convery DJ, Rosenbloom ME. The generation of intensity modulated fields for conformal radiotherapy by dynamic collimation. Phys Med Biol. 1992;37:1359–74.CrossRef Convery DJ, Rosenbloom ME. The generation of intensity modulated fields for conformal radiotherapy by dynamic collimation. Phys Med Biol. 1992;37:1359–74.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Spirou SV, Chui CS. Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. Med Phys. 1994;21:1031–41.PubMedCrossRef Spirou SV, Chui CS. Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. Med Phys. 1994;21:1031–41.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Stein J, Bortfeld T, Dorschel B, Schlegel W. Dynamic X-ray compensation for conformal radiotherapy by means of multi-leaf collimation. Radiother Oncol. 1994;32:163–73.PubMedCrossRef Stein J, Bortfeld T, Dorschel B, Schlegel W. Dynamic X-ray compensation for conformal radiotherapy by means of multi-leaf collimation. Radiother Oncol. 1994;32:163–73.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Siochi RA. Minimizing static intensity modulation delivery time using an intensity solid paradigm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:671–80.PubMedCrossRef Siochi RA. Minimizing static intensity modulation delivery time using an intensity solid paradigm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:671–80.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Que W. Comparison of algorithms for multileaf collimator field segmentation. Med Phys. 1999;26:2390–6.PubMedCrossRef Que W. Comparison of algorithms for multileaf collimator field segmentation. Med Phys. 1999;26:2390–6.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Xia P, Verhey LJ. Multileaf collimator leaf sequencing algorithm for intensity modulated beams with multiple static segments. Med Phys. 1998;25:1424–34.PubMedCrossRef Xia P, Verhey LJ. Multileaf collimator leaf sequencing algorithm for intensity modulated beams with multiple static segments. Med Phys. 1998;25:1424–34.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Chui CS, Chan MF, Yorke E, Spirou S, Ling CC. Delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a conventional multileaf collimator: comparison of dynamic and segmental methods. Med Phys. 2001;28:2441–9.PubMedCrossRef Chui CS, Chan MF, Yorke E, Spirou S, Ling CC. Delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a conventional multileaf collimator: comparison of dynamic and segmental methods. Med Phys. 2001;28:2441–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Fogliata A, Bolsi A, Cozzi L. Comparative analysis of intensity modulation inverse planning modules of three commercial treatment planning systems applied to head and neck tumour model. Radiother Oncol. 2003;66:29–40.PubMedCrossRef Fogliata A, Bolsi A, Cozzi L. Comparative analysis of intensity modulation inverse planning modules of three commercial treatment planning systems applied to head and neck tumour model. Radiother Oncol. 2003;66:29–40.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Longobardi B, De Martin E, Fiorino G, Dell’Oca I, Broggi S, Cattaneo GM, et al. Comparing 3DCRT and inversely optimized IMRT planning for head and neck cancer: equivalence between step-and-shoot and sliding window techniques. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77:148–56.PubMedCrossRef Longobardi B, De Martin E, Fiorino G, Dell’Oca I, Broggi S, Cattaneo GM, et al. Comparing 3DCRT and inversely optimized IMRT planning for head and neck cancer: equivalence between step-and-shoot and sliding window techniques. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77:148–56.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Samuelsson A, Johansson KA. Intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning for dynamic multileaf collimator delivery: influence of different parameters on dose distributions. Radiother Oncol. 2004;66:19–28.CrossRef Samuelsson A, Johansson KA. Intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning for dynamic multileaf collimator delivery: influence of different parameters on dose distributions. Radiother Oncol. 2004;66:19–28.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Fiveash JB, Murshed H, Duan J, Hyatt M, Caranto J, Bonner JA, et al. Effect of multileaf collimator leaf width on physical dose distributions in the treatment of CNS and head and neck neoplasms with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2002;29:1116–9.PubMedCrossRef Fiveash JB, Murshed H, Duan J, Hyatt M, Caranto J, Bonner JA, et al. Effect of multileaf collimator leaf width on physical dose distributions in the treatment of CNS and head and neck neoplasms with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2002;29:1116–9.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Van Esch A, Depuydt T, Huyskens DP. The use of an aSi-based EPID for routine absolute dosimetric pre-treatment verification of dynamic IMRT fields. Radiother Oncol. 2004;71:223–34.PubMedCrossRef Van Esch A, Depuydt T, Huyskens DP. The use of an aSi-based EPID for routine absolute dosimetric pre-treatment verification of dynamic IMRT fields. Radiother Oncol. 2004;71:223–34.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Sharma DS, Mhatre V, Heigrujam M, Talapatra K, Mallik S. Portal dosimetry for pretreatment verification of IMRT plan: a comparison with 2D ion chamber array. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11:3268.PubMed Sharma DS, Mhatre V, Heigrujam M, Talapatra K, Mallik S. Portal dosimetry for pretreatment verification of IMRT plan: a comparison with 2D ion chamber array. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11:3268.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25(5):656–61.PubMedCrossRef Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25(5):656–61.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Van Elmpt W, McDermott L, Nijsten S, Wendling M, Lambin P, Mijnheer B. A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry. Radiother Oncol. 2008;88:289–309.PubMedCrossRef Van Elmpt W, McDermott L, Nijsten S, Wendling M, Lambin P, Mijnheer B. A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry. Radiother Oncol. 2008;88:289–309.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST: paleontological statistics software for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica. 2001;4:1–9. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST: paleontological statistics software for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica. 2001;4:1–9.
17.
go back to reference Van Asselen B, Dehnad H, Terhaard CH, Lagendijk JJ, Raaijmakers CP. Segmental IMRT for oropharyngeal cancer in a clinical setting. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69:259–66.PubMedCrossRef Van Asselen B, Dehnad H, Terhaard CH, Lagendijk JJ, Raaijmakers CP. Segmental IMRT for oropharyngeal cancer in a clinical setting. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69:259–66.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Verellen D, Linthout N, Soete G, Van Acker S, De Roover P, Storme G. Considerations on treatment efficiency of different conformal radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2002;63:27–36.PubMedCrossRef Verellen D, Linthout N, Soete G, Van Acker S, De Roover P, Storme G. Considerations on treatment efficiency of different conformal radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2002;63:27–36.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Nicolini G, Fogliata A, Cozzi L. IMRT with the sliding window: comparison of the static and dynamic methods dosimetric and spectral analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:112–9.PubMedCrossRef Nicolini G, Fogliata A, Cozzi L. IMRT with the sliding window: comparison of the static and dynamic methods dosimetric and spectral analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:112–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
To evaluate the accuracy of dynamic versus static IMRT delivery using portal dosimetry
Authors
S. Clemente
R. Caivano
M. Cozzolino
G. Califano
C. Chiumento
A. Fiorentino
V. Fusco
Publication date
01-02-2014
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1699-048X
Electronic ISSN: 1699-3055
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-013-1065-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Clinical and Translational Oncology 2/2014 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine