A clinical 3D/4D CBCT‐based treatment dose monitoring system. (10th October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Qin, An; Gersten, David; Liang, Jian; Liu, Qiang; Grill, Inga; Guerrero, Thomas; Stevens, Craig; Yan, Di
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 19:Number 6(2018)
• Page Start: 166
• Page End: 176
• Publication Date: 2018-10-10
• Subjects: 4D‐CBCT -- adaptive radiotherapy -- CBCT -- IGRT -- treatment dose; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12474
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: To monitor delivered dose and trigger plan adaptation when deviation becomes unacceptable, a clinical treatment dose (Tx‐Dose) reconstruction system based on three‐dimensional (3D)/four‐dimensional (4D)‐cone beam computed tomograpy (CBCT) images was developed and evaluated on various treatment sites, particularly for lung cancer patient treated by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). This system integrates with our treatment planning system (TPS), Linacs recording and verification system (R&V), and CBCT imaging system, consisting of three modules: Treatment Schedule Monitoring module (TSM), pseudo‐CT Generating module (PCG), and Treatment Dose Reconstruction/evaluation module (TDR). TSM watches the treatment progress in the R&V system and triggers the PCG module when new CBCT is available. PCG retrieves the CBCTs and performs planning CT to CBCT deformable registration (DIR) to generate pseudo‐CT. The 4D‐CBCT images are taken for target localization and correction in lung cancer patient before treatment. To take full advantage of the valuable information carried by 4D‐CBCT, a novel phase‐matching DIR scheme was developed to generate 4D pseudo‐CT images for 4D dose reconstruction. Finally, TDR module creates TPS scripts to automate Tx‐Dose calculation on the pseudo‐CT images. Both initial quantitative commissioning and patient‐specific qualitative quality assurance of the DIR tool were utilized to ensure the DIR quality. The treatment doses of ten patients (six SBRT‐lung, two head and neck (HN), one breast and one prostate cancer patients) were retrospectively constructed and evaluated. The target registration error (mean ± STD: 1.05 ± 1.13 mm) of the DIR tool is comparable to the interobserver uncertainty (0.88 ± 1.31 mm) evaluated by a publically available lung‐landmarks dataset. For lung SBRT patients, the D99 of the final cumulative Tx‐Dose of GTV is 93.8 ± 5.5% (83.7–100.1%) of the originally planned D99 . CTV D99 decreases by 3% and mean ipsilateral parotid dose increases by 11.5% for one of the two HN patients. In conclusion, we have demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of a treatment dose verification system in our clinical setting.