Motion as perturbation. II. Development of the method for dosimetric analysis of motion effects with fixed‐gantry IMRT. Issue 6 (5th May 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nelms, Benjamin E.; Opp, Daniel; Zhang, Geoffrey; Moros, Eduardo; Feygelman, Vladimir
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 41:Issue 6(2014)Part 1
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2014-05-05
• Subjects: Dose‐volume analysis -- Ancillary equipment; dosimetry -- motion compensation -- phantoms -- radiation therapy; tumor motion -- 4D dose reconstruction -- dosimetry -- intensity modulation -- quality assurance; Radiation therapy -- Analysis of motion -- Scintigraphy; Dosimetry -- Intensity modulated radiation therapy -- Kinematics -- Perturbation methods -- Clocks -- Computer software -- Cancer -- Three dimensional image processing -- Anatomy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4873691
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: In this work, the feasibility of implementing a motion‐perturbation approach to accurately estimate volumetric dose in the presence of organ motion—previously demonstrated for VMAT‐–is studied for static gantry IMRT. The method's accuracy is improved for the voxels that have very low planned dose but acquire appreciable dose due to motion. The study describes the modified algorithm and its experimental validation and provides an example of a clinical application. Methods: A contoured region‐of‐interest is propagated according to the predefined motion kernel throughout time‐resolved 4D phantom dose grids. This timed series of 3D dose grids is produced by the measurement‐guided dose reconstruction algorithm, based on an irradiation of a staticARCCHECK (AC) helical dosimeter array (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL). Each moving voxel collects dose over the dynamic simulation. The difference in dose‐to‐moving voxel vs dose‐to‐static voxel in‐phantom forms the basis of a motion perturbation correction that is applied to the corresponding voxel in the patient dataset. A new method to synchronize the accelerator and dosimeter clocks, applicable to fixed‐gantry IMRT, was developed. Refinements to the algorithm account for the excursion of low dose voxels into high dose regions, causing appreciable dose increase due to motion (LDVE correction). For experimental validation, four plans using TG‐119 structure sets and objectives were produced using segmented IMRT direct machine parameters optimization in Pinnacle treatment planning system (v. 9.6, Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Fitchburg, WI). All beams were delivered with the gantry angle of 0°. Each beam was delivered three times: (1) to the static AC centered on the room lasers; (2) to a static phantom containing aMAPCHECK2 (MC2) planar diode array dosimeter (Sun Nuclear); and (3) to the moving MC2 phantom. The motion trajectory was an ellipse in the IEC XY plane, with 3 and 1.5 cm axes. The period was 5 s, with the resulting average motion speed of 1.45 cm/s. The motion‐perturbed high resolution (2 mm voxel) volumetric dose grids on the MC2 phantom were generated for each beam. From each grid, a coronal dose plane at the detector level was extracted and compared to the corresponding moving MC2 measurement, using gamma analysis with both global (G) and local (L) dose‐error normalization. Results: Using the TG‐119 criteria of (3%G/3 mm), per beam average gamma analysis passing rates exceeded 95% in all cases. No individual beam had a passing rate below 91%. LDVE correction eliminated systematic disagreement patterns at the beams' aperture edges. In a representative example, application of LDVE correction improved (2%L/2 mm) gamma analysis passing rate for an IMRT beam from 74% to 98%. Conclusions: The effect of motion on the moving region‐of‐interest IMRT dose can be estimated with a standard, static phantom QA measurement, provided the motion characteristics are independently known from 4D CT or otherwise. The motion‐perturbed absolute dose estimates were validated by the direct planar diode array measurements, and were found to reliably agree with them in a homogeneous phantom.