Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2026
Technical note: reconstructing dose distributions from manually planned electron boosts in breast radiotherapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jaikuna Tanwiwat, Dawes Isobel, Chamberlin Hannah, Azria David, Chang-Claude Jenny, De Santis Maria Carmen, Gutiérrez-Enríquez Sara, van Herk Marcel, Hoskin Peter, Kotzki Lea, Defraene Gilles, Lambrecht Maarten, Lingard Zoe, Seibold Petra, Seoane Alejandro, Sperk Elena, Symonds R Paul, Talbot Christopher J, Rancati Tiziana, Rattay Tim, Reyes Victoria, Rosenstein Barry S, de Ruysscher Dirk, Vega Ana, Veldeman Liv, Webb Adam, West Catharine Ml, Osorio Eliana Vasquez, Aznar Marianne C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In breast radiotherapy, delivery of manually-calculated electron boosts limits retrospective dose-response analyses as dose distribution is unavailable. This work evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing dose distributions from manually planned electron boosts in breast-conserving radiotherapy.
METHODS: Only 72 out of 198 breast cancer patients had complete stored dose distributions from sequential electron boosts in the REQUITE study. Arbitrary data from 70/72 patients were used to develop and validate dose reconstruction method. Twenty patients were used to determine optimal parameters for Monte-Carlo-based (MC) electron dose reconstruction on RayStation (v.11B-R), considering CT-calibration curve, MC-history number, andcalculation grid resolution. Remaining 50 patients were used to quantify dose reconstruction accuracy. The similarity between reconstructed and stored dose was evaluated using 3D-gamma index and dosimetric parameters extracted from breast and tumour bed contours. Dose difference location was evaluated using dose-location histogram.
RESULTS: Calculation grid resolution significantly impacted electron dose distribution (p < 0.01), where the finest grid (0.15 cm) showed highest similarity to stored doses. CT-calibration curve and MC-history number had a negligible influence on dose reconstruction. Dosimetric difference between reconstructed and stored doses was < 1 Gy for breast and tumour bed. Reconstructed dose was achieved > 90% gamma passing rate in the validation set. However, around 2.5 Gy dose differences were observed at the skin and tissue interface regions.
CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective electron boost dose reconstruction is feasible with acceptable accuracy, and could increase data completeness in large cohort studies. Caution is advised when assessing dose near tissue interface and further validation is needed outside the REQUITE dataset.
METHODS: Only 72 out of 198 breast cancer patients had complete stored dose distributions from sequential electron boosts in the REQUITE study. Arbitrary data from 70/72 patients were used to develop and validate dose reconstruction method. Twenty patients were used to determine optimal parameters for Monte-Carlo-based (MC) electron dose reconstruction on RayStation (v.11B-R), considering CT-calibration curve, MC-history number, andcalculation grid resolution. Remaining 50 patients were used to quantify dose reconstruction accuracy. The similarity between reconstructed and stored dose was evaluated using 3D-gamma index and dosimetric parameters extracted from breast and tumour bed contours. Dose difference location was evaluated using dose-location histogram.
RESULTS: Calculation grid resolution significantly impacted electron dose distribution (p < 0.01), where the finest grid (0.15 cm) showed highest similarity to stored doses. CT-calibration curve and MC-history number had a negligible influence on dose reconstruction. Dosimetric difference between reconstructed and stored doses was < 1 Gy for breast and tumour bed. Reconstructed dose was achieved > 90% gamma passing rate in the validation set. However, around 2.5 Gy dose differences were observed at the skin and tissue interface regions.
CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective electron boost dose reconstruction is feasible with acceptable accuracy, and could increase data completeness in large cohort studies. Caution is advised when assessing dose near tissue interface and further validation is needed outside the REQUITE dataset.