Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
Feasibility of Ethos adaptive treatments of lung tumors and associated quality assurance.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wegener Sonja, Weick Stefan, Schindhelm Robert, Tamihardja Jörg, Sauer Otto A, Razinskas Gary
Аннотация
MOTIVATION: Online adaptive radiotherapy with Ethos is based on the anatomy determined from daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Dose optimization and computation are performed on the density map of a synthetic CT (sCT), a deformable registration of the initial planning CT (pCT) onto the current CBCT. Large density changes as present in the lung region are challenging the system.
METHODS: Treatment plans for Ethos were created and delivered for 1, 2, and 3 cm diameter lung lesions in an anthropomorphic phantom, combining different insets in the pCT and during adaptive and non-adaptive treatment sessions. Primary and secondary dose calculations as well as back-projected dose from portal images were evaluated.
RESULTS: Density changes due to changed insets were not considered in the sCTs. This resulted in errors in the dose; for example, -15.9% of the mean dose for a plan when changing from a 3 cm inset in the pCT to 1 cm at the time of treatment. Secondary dose calculation is based on the sCT and could therefore not reveal these dose errors. However, dose calculation on the CBCT, either as a recalculation in the treatment planning system or as pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) before the treatment, indicated the differences. EPID in-vivo QA also reported discrepancies between calculated and delivered dose distributions.
CONCLUSIONS: An incorrect density distribution in the sCT has an impact on the dose calculation accuracy in the adaptive treatment workflow with the Ethos system. Additional quality checks of the sCT can detect such errors.
METHODS: Treatment plans for Ethos were created and delivered for 1, 2, and 3 cm diameter lung lesions in an anthropomorphic phantom, combining different insets in the pCT and during adaptive and non-adaptive treatment sessions. Primary and secondary dose calculations as well as back-projected dose from portal images were evaluated.
RESULTS: Density changes due to changed insets were not considered in the sCTs. This resulted in errors in the dose; for example, -15.9% of the mean dose for a plan when changing from a 3 cm inset in the pCT to 1 cm at the time of treatment. Secondary dose calculation is based on the sCT and could therefore not reveal these dose errors. However, dose calculation on the CBCT, either as a recalculation in the treatment planning system or as pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) before the treatment, indicated the differences. EPID in-vivo QA also reported discrepancies between calculated and delivered dose distributions.
CONCLUSIONS: An incorrect density distribution in the sCT has an impact on the dose calculation accuracy in the adaptive treatment workflow with the Ethos system. Additional quality checks of the sCT can detect such errors.