Premium
SU‐E‐T‐129: Are Knowledge‐Based Planning Dose Estimates Valid for Distensible Organs?
Author(s) -
Lalonde R,
Heron D,
Readshaw A,
Huq M
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 - 10.1118/1.4924490
Subject(s) - rectum , radiation treatment planning , nuclear medicine , medicine , dosimetry , radiation therapy , prostate , medical physics , radiology , surgery , cancer
Purpose: Knowledge‐based planning programs have become available to assist treatment planning in radiation therapy. Such programs can be used to generate estimated DVHs and planning constraints for organs at risk (OARs), based upon a model generated from previous plans. These estimates are based upon the planning CT scan. However, for distensible OARs like the bladder and rectum, daily variations in volume may make the dose estimates invalid. The purpose of this study is to determine whether knowledge‐based DVH dose estimates may be valid for distensible OARs. Methods: The Varian RapidPlan™ knowledge‐based planning module was used to generate OAR dose estimates and planning objectives for 10 prostate cases previously planned with VMAT, and final plans were calculated for each. Five weekly setup CBCT scans of each patient were then downloaded and contoured (assuming no change in size and shape of the target volume), and rectum and bladder DVHs were recalculated for each scan. Dose volumes were then compared at 75, 60,and 40 Gy for the bladder and rectum between the planning scan and the CBCTs. Results: Plan doses and estimates matched well at all dose points., Volumes of the rectum and bladder varied widely between planning CT and the CBCTs, ranging from 0.46 to 2.42 for the bladder and 0.71 to 2.18 for the rectum, causing relative dose volumes to vary between planning CT and CBCT, but absolute dose volumes were more consistent. The overall ratio of CBCT/plan dose volumes was 1.02 ±0.27 for rectum and 0.98 ±0.20 for bladder in these patients. Conclusion: Knowledge‐based planning dose volume estimates for distensible OARs are still valid, in absolute volume terms, between treatment planning scans and CBCT's taken during daily treatment. Further analysis of the data is being undertaken to determine how differences depend upon rectum and bladder filling state. This work has been supported by Varian Medical Systems.