Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT.
With intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), it is important that the inverse planning process yields the most appropriate dose distribution for the patient and that the delivered dose then corresponds to the planned dose. This paper presents methods by which the inverse planning and delivery of segmental (step-and-shoot) IMRT can be verified, and gives results for a typical treatment planning system (Pinnacle3 v6.2b, Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Milpitas, CA). Inverse planning was assessed by observing the reduction in objective function as fields were successively added to three-field prostate, esophagus, and thyroid plans. The ability of the treatment planning system to calculate dose for a segmented field was examined by creating a stepped field with five successively narrowing segments. The complete planning process was then investigated by using two orthogonal IMRT fields to create a homogeneous dose distribution in a cubic water phantom. Finally, a clinical situation was simulated by creating a five-field segmental IMRT plan for a lung target in an anthropomorphic phantom. A conformal plan was also compared for context. Addition of fields to inverse plans generally resulted in a reduction of objective function, indicating consistency of inverse planning solutions. Planned dose for fields with stepped intensity agreed with ionization chamber measurements to within 5%. For orthogonal fields, planned dose distributions agreed well with dose measured using film and agreed with ionization chamber measurements to within 3%. For the anthropomorphic phantom, the standard deviation of difference between planned and measured dose was 4%. Although no consensus has yet been reached on what constitutes an acceptable IMRT plan, these results indicate that step-and-shoot IMRT can be planned and delivered using the system described with comparable accuracy to a standard conformal treatment.
Bedford
James L
JL
Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom. James.Bedford@icr.ac.uk
Childs
Peter J
PJ
Warrington
Alan P
AP
D000465:Algorithms; D001822:Body Burden; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D008954:Models, Biological; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000379:methods*; D012062:Relative Biological Effectiveness
Med Phys. 2003 May;30(5):870-9
12772995
Br J Radiol. 2003 Mar;76(903):163-76
12684232
Phys Med Biol. 2002 Apr 7;47(7):N67-77
11996066
Radiother Oncol. 1987 Mar;8(3):237-52
3107087
Med Phys. 2002 Jun;29(6):1109-15
12094980
Phys Med Biol. 2003 Mar 7;48(5):561-72
12696795
Phys Med Biol. 2000 May;45(5):1195-210
10843100
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 May 20;26(2):261-73
8491684
Phys Med Biol. 2002 Oct 7;47(19):3485-501
12408477
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):58-68
12694824
Med Phys. 1998 Oct;25(10):1773-829
9800687
Radiother Oncol. 1998 Dec;49(3):305-16
10075264
Radiother Oncol. 2001 Aug;60(2):191-201
11439214
Med Phys. 2002 Aug;29(8):1687-92
12201414
Med Phys. 2003 Feb;30(2):119-23
12607828
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2002 Autumn;3(4):273-84
12383047
Med Phys. 1985 Mar-Apr;12(2):188-96
4000075
Med Phys. 2003 Aug;30(8):2089-115
12945975
Phys Med Biol. 1999 Oct;44(10):2525-36
10533926
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Aug 30;33(1):151-9
7642414
Med Phys. 2001 Dec;28(12):2466-74
11797950
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2002 Winter;3(1):26-45
11818002
Radiother Oncol. 2002 Mar;62(3):309-19
12175562
Med Phys. 2002 Aug;29(8):1847-58
12201432
Med Phys. 1997 Feb;24(2):149-60
9048355
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
9608475
Med Phys. 2003 Mar;30(3):348-51
12674235
Med Phys. 2003 Jul;30(7):1788-804
12906197