Four‐dimensional dose calculations for dynamic tumour tracking with a gimbal‐mounted linear accelerator. Issue 6 (27th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Carpentier, Emilie E.; McDermott, Ronan L.; Dunne, Emma M.; Camborde, Marie‐Laure A.; Bergman, Alanah M.; Karan, Tania; Liu, Mitchell C. C.; Ma, Roy M. K.; Mestrovic, Ante
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 22:Issue 6(2021)
• Page Start: 16
• Page End: 25
• Publication Date: 2021-05-27
• Subjects: 4D dose calculation -- dynamic tumor tracking -- gimballed linac system; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13265
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: In this study we present a novel method for re‐calculating a treatment plan on different respiratory phases by accurately modeling the panning and tilting beam motion during DTT (the "rotation method"). This method is used to re‐calculate the dose distribution of a plan on multiple breathing phases to accurately assess the dosimetry. Methods: sIMRT plans were optimized on a breath hold computed tomography (CT) image taken at exhale (BHexhale ) for 10 previous liver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy patients. Our method was used to re‐calculate the plan on the inhale (0%) and exhale (50%) phases of the four‐dimensional CT (4DCT) image set. The dose distributions were deformed to the BHexhale CT and summed together with proper weighting calculated from the patient's breathing trace. Subsequently, the plan was re‐calculated on all ten phases using our method and the dose distributions were deformed to the BHexhale CT and accumulated together. The maximum dose for certain organs at risk (OARs) was compared between calculating on two phases and all ten phases. Results: In total, 26 OARs were examined from 10 patients. When the dose was calculated on the inhale and exhale phases six OARs exceeded their dose limit, and when all 10 phases were used five OARs exceeded their limit. Conclusion: Dynamic tumor tracking plans optimized for a single respiratory phase leave an OAR vulnerable to exceeding its dose constraint during other respiratory phases. The rotation method accurately models the beam's geometry. Using deformable image registration to accumulate dose from all 10 breathing phases provides the most accurate results, however it is a time consuming procedure. Accumulating the dose from two extreme breathing phases (exhale and inhale) and weighting them properly provides accurate results while requiring less time. This approach should be used to confirm the safety of a DTT treatment plan prior to delivery.