SU‐GG‐T‐114

4D Planning From Multi Phase 3D Dose Distribution and Linear Transformation On a Single Phase Plan

Teboh Roland, Y. Liu, Nikos Papanikolaou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To reconstruct a 4D dose distribution from the planned dose based on one phase of a 4D‐CT image and compare with results from 4D dose reconstructed from multiple phases and phantom measurements. Method and Materials: A treatment plan was developed for a set of CT images from a single phase of a respiratory motion phantom using ADAC pinnacle TPS. The single phase reconstructed dynamic dose distribution to a coronal pane was obtained for several tumor trajectories by applying a linear transformation on the optimized dose from pinnacle. This was then compared to the dynamic dose distribution obtained by considering a weighted sum of dose distributions from plans based on eight phases of the tumor cycle. Measurements using radiochromic films were made following plan delivery on a LINAC to validate our results. Results: Using gamma index analysis, the number of pixels exceeding a gamma index of 1 was 7% and 0% for the measured versus single phase, and the single versus multi‐phase reconstructed dynamic dose respectively. This was based on a dose difference tolerance of 5% and DTA tolerance of 5mm. The effects of phase dependent weighting versus equal weighting were in general negligible on the dose distribution for the trajectories studied. Using dose difference tolerance of 3% and a DTA tolerance of 4mm, the comparison yielded 0.5%, 0.72% and 1.72% as the percentage of pixels exceeding the gamma index of 1 for sinusoidal tumor motion amplitudes of 1cm, 1.5cm and 2cm respectively. Conclusion: There was close agreement between the two methods of reconstruction and with measurements. Recreating the dynamic dose distribution from the static dose distribution from a single CT image set can be an efficient way of accurately accounting for relative motion in a static or dynamic dose delivery and can be useful in pre‐treatment verification analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2752
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐GG‐T‐114 : 4D Planning From Multi Phase 3D Dose Distribution and Linear Transformation On a Single Phase Plan. / Roland, Teboh; Liu, Y.; Papanikolaou, Nikos.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2008, p. 2752.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e871ac82fa7b4e3f897dcadbeaf5cabc,
title = "SU‐GG‐T‐114: 4D Planning From Multi Phase 3D Dose Distribution and Linear Transformation On a Single Phase Plan",
abstract = "Purpose: To reconstruct a 4D dose distribution from the planned dose based on one phase of a 4D‐CT image and compare with results from 4D dose reconstructed from multiple phases and phantom measurements. Method and Materials: A treatment plan was developed for a set of CT images from a single phase of a respiratory motion phantom using ADAC pinnacle TPS. The single phase reconstructed dynamic dose distribution to a coronal pane was obtained for several tumor trajectories by applying a linear transformation on the optimized dose from pinnacle. This was then compared to the dynamic dose distribution obtained by considering a weighted sum of dose distributions from plans based on eight phases of the tumor cycle. Measurements using radiochromic films were made following plan delivery on a LINAC to validate our results. Results: Using gamma index analysis, the number of pixels exceeding a gamma index of 1 was 7{\%} and 0{\%} for the measured versus single phase, and the single versus multi‐phase reconstructed dynamic dose respectively. This was based on a dose difference tolerance of 5{\%} and DTA tolerance of 5mm. The effects of phase dependent weighting versus equal weighting were in general negligible on the dose distribution for the trajectories studied. Using dose difference tolerance of 3{\%} and a DTA tolerance of 4mm, the comparison yielded 0.5{\%}, 0.72{\%} and 1.72{\%} as the percentage of pixels exceeding the gamma index of 1 for sinusoidal tumor motion amplitudes of 1cm, 1.5cm and 2cm respectively. Conclusion: There was close agreement between the two methods of reconstruction and with measurements. Recreating the dynamic dose distribution from the static dose distribution from a single CT image set can be an efficient way of accurately accounting for relative motion in a static or dynamic dose delivery and can be useful in pre‐treatment verification analysis.",
author = "Teboh Roland and Y. Liu and Nikos Papanikolaou",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1118/1.2961866",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "2752",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐GG‐T‐114

T2 - 4D Planning From Multi Phase 3D Dose Distribution and Linear Transformation On a Single Phase Plan

AU - Roland, Teboh

AU - Liu, Y.

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Purpose: To reconstruct a 4D dose distribution from the planned dose based on one phase of a 4D‐CT image and compare with results from 4D dose reconstructed from multiple phases and phantom measurements. Method and Materials: A treatment plan was developed for a set of CT images from a single phase of a respiratory motion phantom using ADAC pinnacle TPS. The single phase reconstructed dynamic dose distribution to a coronal pane was obtained for several tumor trajectories by applying a linear transformation on the optimized dose from pinnacle. This was then compared to the dynamic dose distribution obtained by considering a weighted sum of dose distributions from plans based on eight phases of the tumor cycle. Measurements using radiochromic films were made following plan delivery on a LINAC to validate our results. Results: Using gamma index analysis, the number of pixels exceeding a gamma index of 1 was 7% and 0% for the measured versus single phase, and the single versus multi‐phase reconstructed dynamic dose respectively. This was based on a dose difference tolerance of 5% and DTA tolerance of 5mm. The effects of phase dependent weighting versus equal weighting were in general negligible on the dose distribution for the trajectories studied. Using dose difference tolerance of 3% and a DTA tolerance of 4mm, the comparison yielded 0.5%, 0.72% and 1.72% as the percentage of pixels exceeding the gamma index of 1 for sinusoidal tumor motion amplitudes of 1cm, 1.5cm and 2cm respectively. Conclusion: There was close agreement between the two methods of reconstruction and with measurements. Recreating the dynamic dose distribution from the static dose distribution from a single CT image set can be an efficient way of accurately accounting for relative motion in a static or dynamic dose delivery and can be useful in pre‐treatment verification analysis.

AB - Purpose: To reconstruct a 4D dose distribution from the planned dose based on one phase of a 4D‐CT image and compare with results from 4D dose reconstructed from multiple phases and phantom measurements. Method and Materials: A treatment plan was developed for a set of CT images from a single phase of a respiratory motion phantom using ADAC pinnacle TPS. The single phase reconstructed dynamic dose distribution to a coronal pane was obtained for several tumor trajectories by applying a linear transformation on the optimized dose from pinnacle. This was then compared to the dynamic dose distribution obtained by considering a weighted sum of dose distributions from plans based on eight phases of the tumor cycle. Measurements using radiochromic films were made following plan delivery on a LINAC to validate our results. Results: Using gamma index analysis, the number of pixels exceeding a gamma index of 1 was 7% and 0% for the measured versus single phase, and the single versus multi‐phase reconstructed dynamic dose respectively. This was based on a dose difference tolerance of 5% and DTA tolerance of 5mm. The effects of phase dependent weighting versus equal weighting were in general negligible on the dose distribution for the trajectories studied. Using dose difference tolerance of 3% and a DTA tolerance of 4mm, the comparison yielded 0.5%, 0.72% and 1.72% as the percentage of pixels exceeding the gamma index of 1 for sinusoidal tumor motion amplitudes of 1cm, 1.5cm and 2cm respectively. Conclusion: There was close agreement between the two methods of reconstruction and with measurements. Recreating the dynamic dose distribution from the static dose distribution from a single CT image set can be an efficient way of accurately accounting for relative motion in a static or dynamic dose delivery and can be useful in pre‐treatment verification analysis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024810866&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024810866&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2961866

DO - 10.1118/1.2961866

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 2752

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -