title: A comparison of the dosimetric effects of intrafraction motion on step-and-shoot, compensator, and helical tomotherapy-based IMRT.
abstract: Intrafraction motion during intensity-modulated radiation therapy can cause differences between the planned and delivered patient dose. The magnitude of these differences is dependent on a number of variables, including the treatment modality. This study was designed to compare the relative susceptibility of plans generated with three different treatment modalities to intrafraction motion. The dosimetric effects of motion were calculated using computational algorithms for seven lung tumor patients. Three delivery techniques - MLC-based step-and-shoot (SNS), beam attenuating compensators, and helical tomotherapy (HT) - were investigated. In total 840 motion-encoded dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were calculated for various combinations of CTV margins and sinusoidal CTV motion including CTV offsets. DVH-based metrics (e.g., D95% and D05%) were used to score plan degradations. For all three modalities, dosimetric degradations were typically smaller than 3% if the CTV displacement was smaller than the CTV margin. For larger displacements, technique and direction-specific sensitivities existed. While the HT plans show similar D95% degradations for motion in the SI and AP directions, SNS and compensator plans showed larger D95% degradations for motion in the SI direction than for motion in the AP direction. When averaged over all motion/margin combinations, compensator plans resulted in 0.9% and 0.6% smaller D95% reductions compared to SNS and HT plans, respectively. These differences were statistically significant. No statistically significant differences in D95% degradations were found between SNS and HT for data averaged over all margin and motion track combinations. For CTV motion that is larger than the CTV margin, the dosimetric impact on the CTV varies with treatment technique and the motion direction. For the cases presented here, the effect of motion on CTV dosimetry was statistically smaller for compensator deliveries than SNS and HT, likely due to the absence of the interplay effect which is present for the more dynamic treatment deliveries. The differences between modalities were, however, small and might not be clinically significant. As expected, margins that envelop the CTV motion provide dosimetric protection against motion for all three modalities.
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, Orlando, FL 32806, USA. benwaghorn@hotmail.com
authors: Ben J
authors: BJ
authors: Waghorn
authors: Robert J
authors: RJ
authors: Staton
authors: Justin M
authors: JM
authors: Rineer
authors: Sanford L
authors: SL
authors: Meeks
authors: Katja
authors: K
authors: Langen
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D019583:Dose Fractionation, Radiation; D006801:Humans; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D009068:Movement; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; D012189:Retrospective Studies
references: Med Phys. 2007 Jan;34(1):91-102
references: 17278494
references: Med Phys. 2011 Oct;38(10):5477-89
references: 21992366
references: Phys Med Biol. 2003 Jun 21;48(12):1773-84
references: 12870582
references: Phys Med Biol. 2009 Oct 7;54(19):5707-34
references: 19729710
references: Med Phys. 2011 Feb;38(2):1037-44
references: 21452741
references: Med Phys. 2003 Jul;30(7):1736-46
references: 12906191
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Jul 7;53(13):3623-40
references: 18560046
references: Phys Med Biol. 2007 Jan 7;52(1):243-55
references: 17183139
references: Med Phys. 2003 Apr;30(4):552-62
references: 12722807
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Jul 21;55(14):4187-202
references: 20601779
references: Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004 Jan;14(1):41-51
references: 14752732
references: Phys Med Biol. 2009 Nov 7;54(21):6611-21
references: 19826197
references: Med Phys. 2010 Jan;37(1):4-11
references: 20175460
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jul 15;53(4):822-34
references: 12095547
references: Med Phys. 1997 Jan;24(1):103-10
references: 9029544
references: Med Phys. 2003 Jun;30(6):1103-9
references: 12852534
references: Radiother Oncol. 2001 Jul;60(1):95-105
references: 11410310
references: Radiother Oncol. 2007 Apr;83(1):49-56
references: 17350124
references: Med Phys. 2005 Sep;32(9):2850-61
references: 16266099
references: Phys Med Biol. 2002 Jul 7;47(13):2203-20
references: 12164582
references: Med Phys. 2005 Jun;32(6):1607-20
references: 16013720
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Oct 1;78(2):609-17
references: 20472366
references: Strahlenther Onkol. 2008 Jan;184(1):8-14
references: 18188517
references: Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):1156-63
references: 15895599
references: Med Phys. 1999 May;26(5):715-20
references: 10360531
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Aug 1;68(5):1537-45
references: 17531399
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 15;76(4):1266-73
references: 19910128
references: Phys Med Biol. 2004 Jun 21;49(12):N175-9
references: 15272689
references: Med Phys. 2008 Apr;35(4):1440-51
references: 18491539