Premium
SU‐E‐J‐175: Comparison of the Treatment Reproducibility of Tumors Affected by Breathing Motion
Author(s) -
Adamczyk M,
Piotrowski T,
Adamczyk S
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4924260
Subject(s) - reproducibility , nuclear medicine , dosimetry , amplitude , breathing , medicine , radiation therapy , intensity (physics) , significant difference , biomedical engineering , mathematics , physics , radiology , optics , statistics , anatomy
Purpose: The aim of the dose distribution simulations was to form a global idea of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) realization, by its comparison to three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) delivery for tumors affected by respiratory motion. Methods: In the group of 10patients both 3DCRT and IMRT plans were prepared.For each field the motion kernel was generated with the largest movement amplitude of 4;6 and 8mm.Additionally,the sets of reference measurements were made in no motion conditions(0 mm).The evaluation of plan delivery,using a diode array placed on moving platform,was based on the Gamma Index analysis with distance to agreement of 3mm and dose difference of 3%. Results: IMRT plans tended to spare doses delivered to lungs compared to 3DCRT.Nonetheless,analyzed volumes showed no significant difference between the static and dynamic techniques,except for the volumes of both lungs receiving 10 and 15Gy.After adding the components associated with the respiratory movement,all IMRT lung parameters evaluated for the ipsilateral,contralateral and both lungs together,revealed considerable differences between the 0vs.6, 0vs.8 and 4vs.8‐mm amplitudes.Similar results were obtained for the 3DCRT lung measurements,but without significance between the 0vs.6‐mm amplitude.Taking into account the CTV score parameter in 3DCRT and IMRT plans,there was no statistically significant difference between the motion patterns with the smallest amplitudes.The differences were found for the 8‐mm amplitude when it was compared both with static conditions and 4‐mm amplitude (for 3DCRT) and between 0vs.6, 0vs.8 and 4vs.8‐mm amplitudes (for IMRT).All accepted and measured 3DCRT and IMRT doses to spinal cord,esophagus and heart were always below the QUANTEC limits. Conclusion: The application of IMRT technique in lung radiotherapy affords possibilities for reducing the lung doses.For maximal amplitudes of breathing trajectory below 4mm,the disagreement between CTV planned and delivered dose distribution can be neglected.Whereas respiratory motion with an amplitude above 5mm leads to significant changes in IMRT delivery.