scholarly journals Assessing the Dosimetric Impact of Real-Time Prostate Motion During Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

2014 ◽  
Vol 88 (5) ◽  
pp. 1167-1174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Diego Azcona ◽  
Lei Xing ◽  
Xin Chen ◽  
Karl Bush ◽  
Ruijiang Li
2021 ◽  
Vol 94 (1120) ◽  
pp. 20201014
Author(s):  
James L Bedford ◽  
Ian M Hanson

Objectives: In real-time portal dosimetry, thresholds are set for several measures of difference between predicted and measured images, and signals larger than those thresholds signify an error. The aim of this work is to investigate the use of an additional composite difference metric (CDM) for earlier detection of errors. Methods: Portal images were predicted for the volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of six prostate patients. Errors in monitor units, aperture opening, aperture position and path length were deliberately introduced into all 180 segments of the treatment plans, and these plans were delivered to a water-equivalent phantom. Four different metrics, consisting of central axis signal, mean image value and two image difference measures, were used to identify errors, and a CDM was added, consisting of a weighted power sum of the individual metrics. To optimise the weights of the CDM and to evaluate the resulting timeliness of error detection, a leave-pair-out strategy was used. For each combination of four patients, the weights of the CDM were determined by an exhaustive search, and the result was evaluated on the remaining two patients. Results: The median segment index at which the errors were identified was 87 (range 40–130) when using all of the individual metrics separately. Using a CDM as well as multiple separate metrics reduced this to 73 (35–95). The median weighting factors of the four metrics constituting the composite were (0.15, 0.10, 0.15, 0.00). Due to selection of suitable threshold levels, there was only one false positive result in the six patients. Conclusion: This study shows that, in conjunction with appropriate error thresholds, use of a CDM is able to identify increased image differences around 20% earlier than the separate measures. Advances in knowledge: This study shows the value of combining difference metrics to allow earlier detection of errors during real-time portal dosimetry for volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment.


2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (6Part13) ◽  
pp. 3386-3386
Author(s):  
J Zhou ◽  
J Turian ◽  
E Lee ◽  
A Templeton ◽  
Y Liao ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Baker ◽  
Robert Olson ◽  
Taran Braich ◽  
Theodora Koulis ◽  
Allison Ye ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline M. Andreozzi ◽  
Rongxiao Zhang ◽  
Adam K. Glaser ◽  
David J. Gladstone ◽  
Lesley A. Jarvis ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subaru Sawayanagi ◽  
Hideomi Yamashita ◽  
Mami Ogita ◽  
Yuki Nozawa ◽  
Yuichi Watanabe ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundThe aim of this study was to clarify the association between intrafractional prostate shift and hydrogel spacer.MethodsThirty-eight patients who received definitive volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer with prostate motion monitoring in our institution in 2018–2019 were retrospectively evaluated. In order to move the rectum away from the prostate, hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR system, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, the United States) injection was proposed to the patients as an option in case of meeting the indication of use. We monitored intrafractional prostate motion by using a 4-dimensional (4D) transperineal ultrasound (US) device: the Clarity 4D ultrasound system (Elekta AB). The deviation of the prostate was monitored in each direction: superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR), and anterior-posterior (AP). We also calculated the vector length (VL). The maximum intrafractional displacement (MID) per fraction for each direction was detected and mean of MIDs was calculated per patient. The MIDs in the non-spacer group and the spacer group were compared using the unpaired t-test.ResultsWe reviewed 33 fractions in eight patients as the spacer group and 148 fractions in 30 patients as the non-spacer group. The superior MID was 0.47 ± 0.07 (mean ± SE) mm vs. 0.97 ± 0.24 mm (P = 0.014), the inferior MID was 1.07 ± 0.11 mm vs. 1.03 ± 0.25 mm (P = 0.88), the left MID was 0.74 ± 0.08 mm vs. 0.87 ± 0.27 mm (P = 0.55), the right MID was 0.67 ± 0.08 mm vs. 0.92 ± 0.21 mm (P = 0.17), the anterior MID was 0.45 ± 0.06 mm vs. 1.16 ± 0.35 mm (P = 0.0023), and the posterior MID was 1.57 ± 0.17 mm vs. 1.37 ± 0.22 mm (P = 0.56) in the non-spacer group and the spacer group, respectively. The max of VL was 2.24 ± 0.19 mm vs. 2.89 ± 0.62 mm (P = 0.19), respectively.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that intrafractional prostate motion during VMAT-SBRT was larger in patients with hydrogel spacer injection in the superior and anterior directions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (13) ◽  
pp. 5509-5530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Chi ◽  
N H Rezaeian ◽  
C Shen ◽  
Y Zhou ◽  
W Lu ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document