SU‐GG‐T‐430

Radiobiological Investigation of the Dosimetric Effects of Daily Megavoltage CT Registration Techniques On Adaptive Radiotherapy with Helical Tomotherapy

P. Mavroidis, F. Su, D. Giantsoudi, Sotirios Stathakis, G. Komisopoulos, C. Shi, Gregory P Swanson, Nikos Papanikolaou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Pre‐treatment patient repositioning in highly conformal radiotherapy modalities is a prerequisite for reducing setup uncertainties. A MVCT image set has to be acquired to account for daily changes in the patient's internal anatomy and setup position. This study aims to investigate the expected effect of patient setup correction with the Hi‐Art tomotherapy system by using radiobiological measures. Method and Materials: Using the Planned Adaptive module (tomotherapy, Inc, Madison, WI), eventual dose discrepancies can be evaluated and corrected. In this study, patients treated for lung, pancreas and prostate carcinomas by Helical Tomotherapy plans are evaluated. In each cancer case, two dose distributions with and without patient setup correction were calculated using the MVCT image sets and they were evaluated using the complication‐free tumor control probability (P+) and biologically effective uniform dose (BEUD) concepts. Results: For the lung cancer case, at the optimum dose levels of the two dose distributions, the P+ value is 57.6% and 56.8% for a BEUDITV of 64.8 Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 78.1% and 78.1%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 20.5% and 21.3%. For the pancrease cancer case, the P+ value is 95.0% for a BEUDITV of 67.9 Gy and 97.5% for a BEUDITV of 69.9 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 97.8% and 98.7%, whereas the PI values are 2.9% and 1.2%. For the prostate cancer case, the P+ value is 57.7% for a BEUDITV of 90.2 Gy and 55.9% for a BEUDITV of 90.6 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 83.7% and 84.7%, whereas the PI values are 26.1% and 28.8%. Conclusion: According to our results, patient setup corrections during registration are adequate to produce the necessary target localization. Clinical cases, which look dosimetrically similar, can be quite different in radiobiological terms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2823-2824
Number of pages2
JournalMedical Physics
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy
Pancrelipase
Moving and Lifting Patients
Conformal Radiotherapy
Neoplasms
Uncertainty
Prostate
Pancreas
Lung Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Anatomy
Carcinoma
Lung

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐GG‐T‐430 : Radiobiological Investigation of the Dosimetric Effects of Daily Megavoltage CT Registration Techniques On Adaptive Radiotherapy with Helical Tomotherapy. / Mavroidis, P.; Su, F.; Giantsoudi, D.; Stathakis, Sotirios; Komisopoulos, G.; Shi, C.; Swanson, Gregory P; Papanikolaou, Nikos.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2008, p. 2823-2824.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mavroidis, P. ; Su, F. ; Giantsoudi, D. ; Stathakis, Sotirios ; Komisopoulos, G. ; Shi, C. ; Swanson, Gregory P ; Papanikolaou, Nikos. / SU‐GG‐T‐430 : Radiobiological Investigation of the Dosimetric Effects of Daily Megavoltage CT Registration Techniques On Adaptive Radiotherapy with Helical Tomotherapy. In: Medical Physics. 2008 ; Vol. 35, No. 6. pp. 2823-2824.
@article{28e4495e27b140d3b40563532c7aeea8,
title = "SU‐GG‐T‐430: Radiobiological Investigation of the Dosimetric Effects of Daily Megavoltage CT Registration Techniques On Adaptive Radiotherapy with Helical Tomotherapy",
abstract = "Purpose: Pre‐treatment patient repositioning in highly conformal radiotherapy modalities is a prerequisite for reducing setup uncertainties. A MVCT image set has to be acquired to account for daily changes in the patient's internal anatomy and setup position. This study aims to investigate the expected effect of patient setup correction with the Hi‐Art tomotherapy system by using radiobiological measures. Method and Materials: Using the Planned Adaptive module (tomotherapy, Inc, Madison, WI), eventual dose discrepancies can be evaluated and corrected. In this study, patients treated for lung, pancreas and prostate carcinomas by Helical Tomotherapy plans are evaluated. In each cancer case, two dose distributions with and without patient setup correction were calculated using the MVCT image sets and they were evaluated using the complication‐free tumor control probability (P+) and biologically effective uniform dose (BEUD) concepts. Results: For the lung cancer case, at the optimum dose levels of the two dose distributions, the P+ value is 57.6{\%} and 56.8{\%} for a BEUDITV of 64.8 Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 78.1{\%} and 78.1{\%}, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 20.5{\%} and 21.3{\%}. For the pancrease cancer case, the P+ value is 95.0{\%} for a BEUDITV of 67.9 Gy and 97.5{\%} for a BEUDITV of 69.9 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 97.8{\%} and 98.7{\%}, whereas the PI values are 2.9{\%} and 1.2{\%}. For the prostate cancer case, the P+ value is 57.7{\%} for a BEUDITV of 90.2 Gy and 55.9{\%} for a BEUDITV of 90.6 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 83.7{\%} and 84.7{\%}, whereas the PI values are 26.1{\%} and 28.8{\%}. Conclusion: According to our results, patient setup corrections during registration are adequate to produce the necessary target localization. Clinical cases, which look dosimetrically similar, can be quite different in radiobiological terms.",
author = "P. Mavroidis and F. Su and D. Giantsoudi and Sotirios Stathakis and G. Komisopoulos and C. Shi and Swanson, {Gregory P} and Nikos Papanikolaou",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1118/1.2962178",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "2823--2824",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐GG‐T‐430

T2 - Radiobiological Investigation of the Dosimetric Effects of Daily Megavoltage CT Registration Techniques On Adaptive Radiotherapy with Helical Tomotherapy

AU - Mavroidis, P.

AU - Su, F.

AU - Giantsoudi, D.

AU - Stathakis, Sotirios

AU - Komisopoulos, G.

AU - Shi, C.

AU - Swanson, Gregory P

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Purpose: Pre‐treatment patient repositioning in highly conformal radiotherapy modalities is a prerequisite for reducing setup uncertainties. A MVCT image set has to be acquired to account for daily changes in the patient's internal anatomy and setup position. This study aims to investigate the expected effect of patient setup correction with the Hi‐Art tomotherapy system by using radiobiological measures. Method and Materials: Using the Planned Adaptive module (tomotherapy, Inc, Madison, WI), eventual dose discrepancies can be evaluated and corrected. In this study, patients treated for lung, pancreas and prostate carcinomas by Helical Tomotherapy plans are evaluated. In each cancer case, two dose distributions with and without patient setup correction were calculated using the MVCT image sets and they were evaluated using the complication‐free tumor control probability (P+) and biologically effective uniform dose (BEUD) concepts. Results: For the lung cancer case, at the optimum dose levels of the two dose distributions, the P+ value is 57.6% and 56.8% for a BEUDITV of 64.8 Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 78.1% and 78.1%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 20.5% and 21.3%. For the pancrease cancer case, the P+ value is 95.0% for a BEUDITV of 67.9 Gy and 97.5% for a BEUDITV of 69.9 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 97.8% and 98.7%, whereas the PI values are 2.9% and 1.2%. For the prostate cancer case, the P+ value is 57.7% for a BEUDITV of 90.2 Gy and 55.9% for a BEUDITV of 90.6 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 83.7% and 84.7%, whereas the PI values are 26.1% and 28.8%. Conclusion: According to our results, patient setup corrections during registration are adequate to produce the necessary target localization. Clinical cases, which look dosimetrically similar, can be quite different in radiobiological terms.

AB - Purpose: Pre‐treatment patient repositioning in highly conformal radiotherapy modalities is a prerequisite for reducing setup uncertainties. A MVCT image set has to be acquired to account for daily changes in the patient's internal anatomy and setup position. This study aims to investigate the expected effect of patient setup correction with the Hi‐Art tomotherapy system by using radiobiological measures. Method and Materials: Using the Planned Adaptive module (tomotherapy, Inc, Madison, WI), eventual dose discrepancies can be evaluated and corrected. In this study, patients treated for lung, pancreas and prostate carcinomas by Helical Tomotherapy plans are evaluated. In each cancer case, two dose distributions with and without patient setup correction were calculated using the MVCT image sets and they were evaluated using the complication‐free tumor control probability (P+) and biologically effective uniform dose (BEUD) concepts. Results: For the lung cancer case, at the optimum dose levels of the two dose distributions, the P+ value is 57.6% and 56.8% for a BEUDITV of 64.8 Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 78.1% and 78.1%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 20.5% and 21.3%. For the pancrease cancer case, the P+ value is 95.0% for a BEUDITV of 67.9 Gy and 97.5% for a BEUDITV of 69.9 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 97.8% and 98.7%, whereas the PI values are 2.9% and 1.2%. For the prostate cancer case, the P+ value is 57.7% for a BEUDITV of 90.2 Gy and 55.9% for a BEUDITV of 90.6 Gy, respectively. The respective PB values are 83.7% and 84.7%, whereas the PI values are 26.1% and 28.8%. Conclusion: According to our results, patient setup corrections during registration are adequate to produce the necessary target localization. Clinical cases, which look dosimetrically similar, can be quite different in radiobiological terms.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024799443&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024799443&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2962178

DO - 10.1118/1.2962178

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 2823

EP - 2824

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -