BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2006) 79, 401-408
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/91588055

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Seco, J
Right arrow Articles by Webb, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Seco, J
Right arrow Articles by Webb, S

Full paper

A quantitative study of IMRT delivery effects in commercial planning systems for the case of oesophagus and prostate tumours

J Seco, PhD, C H Clark, PhD, P M Evans, DPhil and S Webb, PhD, DIC

Joint Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT, UK

This study focuses on understanding the impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery effects when applied to plans generated by commercial treatment-planning systems such as Pinnacle (ADAC Laboratories Inc.) and CadPlan/Helios (Varian Medical Systems). These commercial planning systems have had several version upgrades (with improvements in the optimization algorithm), but the IMRT delivery effects have not been incorporated into the optimization process. IMRT delivery effects include head-scatter fluence from IMRT fields, transmission through leaves and the effect of the rounded shape of the leaf ends. They are usually accounted for after optimization when leaf sequencing the "optimal" fluence profiles, to derive the delivered fluence profile. The study was divided into two main parts: (a) analysing the dose distribution within the planning-target volume (PTV), produced by each of the commercial treatment-planning systems, after the delivered fluence had been renormalized to deliver the correct dose to the PTV; and (b) studying the impact of the IMRT delivery technique on the surrounding critical organs such as the spinal cord, lungs, rectum, bladder etc. The study was performed for tumours of (i) the oesophagus and (ii) the prostate and pelvic nodes. An oesophagus case was planned with the Pinnacle planning system for IMRT delivery, via multiple-static fields (MSF) and compensators, using the Elekta SL25 with a multileaf collimator (MLC) component. A prostate and pelvic nodes IMRT plan was performed with the Cadplan/Helios system for a dynamic delivery (DMLC) using the Varian 120-leaf Millennium MLC. In these commercial planning systems, since IMRT delivery effects are not included into the optimization process, fluence renormalization is required such that the median delivered PTV dose equals the initial prescribed PTV dose. In preparing the optimum fluence profile for delivery, the PTV dose has been "smeared" by the IMRT delivery techniques. In the case of the oesophagus, the critical organ, spinal cord, received a greater dose than initially planned, due to the delivery effects. The increase in the spinal cord dose is of the order of 2–3 Gy. In the case of the prostate and pelvic nodes, the IMRT delivery effects led to an increase of approximately 2 Gy in the dose delivered to the secondary PTV, the pelvic nodes. In addition to this, the small bowel, rectum and bladder received an increased dose of the order of 2–3 Gy to 50% of their total volume. IMRT delivery techniques strongly influence the delivered dose distributions for the oesophagus and prostate/pelvic nodes tumour sites and these effects are not yet accounted for in the Pinnacle and the CadPlan/Helios planning systems. Currently, they must be taken into account during the optimization stage by altering the dose limits accepted during optimization so that the final (sequenced) dose is within the constraints.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.