Premium
Evaluation of the effect of patient dose from cone beam computed tomography on prostate IMRT using Monte Carlo simulation
Author(s) -
Chow James C. L.,
Leung Michael K. K.,
Islam Mohammad K.,
Norrlinger Bernhard D.,
Jaffray David A.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.2815625
Subject(s) - isocenter , pinnacle , cone beam computed tomography , monte carlo method , nuclear medicine , radiation treatment planning , medicine , dosimetry , radiation therapy , computed tomography , imaging phantom , radiology , mathematics , statistics
The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the patient dose due to the kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (kV‐CBCT) in a prostate intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The dose distributions for the five prostate IMRTs were calculated using the Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system. To calculate the patient dose from CBCT, phase‐space beams of a CBCT head based on the ELEKTA x‐ray volume imaging system were generated using the Monte Carlo BEAMnrc code for 100, 120, 130, and 140 kVp energies. An in‐house graphical user interface called DOSCTP (DOSXYZnrc‐based) developed using MATLAB was used to calculate the dose distributions due to a 360 ° photon arc from the CBCT beam with the same patient CT image sets as used in Pinnacle 3 . The two calculated dose distributions were added together by setting the CBCT doses equal to 1 % , 1.5 % , 2 % , and 2.5 % of the prescription dose of the prostate IMRT. The prostate plan and the summed dose distributions were then processed in the CERR platform to determine the dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) of the regions of interest. Moreover, dose profiles along the x ‐ and y ‐axes crossing the isocenter with and without addition of the CBCT dose were determined. It was found that the added doses due to CBCT are most significant at the femur heads. Higher doses were found at the bones for a relatively low energy CBCT beam such as 100 kVp. Apart from the bones, the CBCT dose was observed to be most concentrated on the anterior and posterior side of the patient anatomy. Analysis of the DVHs for the prostate and other critical tissues showed that they vary only slightly with the added CBCT dose at different beam energies. On the other hand, the changes of the DVHs for the femur heads due to the CBCT dose and beam energy were more significant than those of rectal and bladder wall. By analyzing the vertical and horizontal dose profiles crossing the femur heads and isocenter, with and without the CBCT dose equal to 2 % of the prescribed dose, it was found that there is about a 5 % increase of dose at the femur head. Still, such an increase in the femur head dose is well below the dose limit of the bone in our IMRT plans. Therefore, under these dose fractionation conditions, it is concluded that, though CBCT causes a higher dose deposited at the bones, there may be no significant effect in the DVHs of critical tissues in the prostate IMRT.