title: Accurate IMRT fluence verification for prostate cancer patients using 'in-vivo' measured EPID images and in-room acquired kilovoltage cone-beam CT scans.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  To investigate for prostate cancer patients the comparison of 'in-vivo' measured portal dose images (PDIs) with predictions based on a kilovoltage cone-beam CT scan (CBCT), acquired during the same treatment fraction, as an alternative for pre-treatment verification. For evaluation purposes, predictions were also performed using the patients' planning CTs (pCT).
  
  
  METHODS
  To get reliable CBCT electron densities for PDI predictions, Hounsfield units from the pCT were mapped onto the CBCT, while accounting for non-rigidity in patient anatomy in an approximate way. PDI prediction accuracy was first validated for an anatomical phantom, using IMRT treatment plans of ten prostate cancer patients. Clinical performance was studied using data acquired for 50 prostate cancer patients. For each patient, 4-5 CBCTs were available, resulting in a total of 1413 evaluated images. Measured and predicted PDIs were compared using γ-analyses with 3% global dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement as reference criteria. Moreover, the pass rate for automated PDI comparison was assessed. To quantify improvements in IMRT fluence verification accuracy results from multiple fractions were combined by generating a γ-image with values halfway the minimum and median γ values, pixel by pixel.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For patients, CBCT-based PDI predictions showed a high agreement with measurements, with an average percentage of rejected pixels of 1.41% only. In spite of possible intra-fraction motion and anatomy changes, this was only slightly larger than for phantom measurements (0.86%). For pCT-based predictions, the agreement deteriorated (average percentage of rejected pixels 2.98%), due to an enhanced impact of anatomy variations. For predictions based on CBCT, combination of the first 2 fractions yielded gamma results in close agreement with pre-treatment analyses (average percentage of rejected pixels 0.63% versus 0.35%, percentage of rejected beams 0.6% versus 0%). For the pCT-based approach, only combination of the first 5 fractions resulted in acceptable agreement with pre-treatment results.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In-room acquired CBCT scans can be used for high accuracy IMRT fluence verification based on in-vivo measured EPID images. Combination of γ results for the first 2 fractions can largely compensate for small accuracy reductions, with respect to pre-treatment verification, related to intra-fraction motion and anatomy changes.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC-Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. a.m.ali@erasmusmc.nl.
authors.forename: Ali Sam
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Ali
authors.forename: Maarten L P
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Dirkx
authors.forename: Ruud M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Cools
authors.forename: Ben J M
authors.initials: BJ
authors.lastname: Heijmen
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 1998 Nov;49(2):125-32
references.pmid: 10052877
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2010 Aug;96(2):172-7
references.pmid: 20580111
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2008 Jan;86(1):35-42
references.pmid: 18061692
references.citation: Med Phys. 2006 Feb;33(2):259-73
references.pmid: 16532930
references.citation: Med Phys. 2006 Apr;33(4):888-903
references.pmid: 16696464
references.citation: Med Phys. 2001 Feb;28(2):220-31
references.pmid: 11243347
references.citation: Med Phys. 2000 Dec;27(12):2701-7
references.pmid: 11190953
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2010 Feb;94(2):188-94
references.pmid: 20083317
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Dec 1;45(5):1297-303
references.pmid: 10613326
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2000 Dec;45(12):N183-96
references.pmid: 11131208
references.citation: Med Phys. 2002 Sep;29(9):2034-40
references.pmid: 12349924
references.citation: Med Phys. 2004 Sep;31(9):2549-51
references.pmid: 15487737
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2006 Nov;81(2):168-75
references.pmid: 17055604
references.citation: Med Phys. 2006 Oct;33(10):3921-30
references.pmid: 17089854
references.citation: Med Phys. 1998 Jun;25(6):830-40
references.pmid: 9650170
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Apr 1;73(5):1580-7
references.pmid: 19306755
references.citation: Med Phys. 2003 Dec;30(12):3143-55
references.pmid: 14713081
references.citation: Med Phys. 2011 Jan;38(1):377-81
references.pmid: 21361205
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jul 15;71(4):1074-83
references.pmid: 18207657
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Apr 1;67(5):1568-77
references.pmid: 17394951
references.citation: Med Phys. 2012 Mar;39(3):1314-21
references.pmid: 22380364
references.citation: J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2003 Autumn;4(4):287-99
references.pmid: 14604418
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2006 Jul;80(1):86-92
references.pmid: 16854483
references.citation: Med Phys. 2003 Jul;30(7):1618-27
references.pmid: 12906179
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Nov 1;60(3):981-93
references.pmid: 15465217
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2007 Nov;85(2):195-200
references.pmid: 17936387
references.citation: Med Phys. 2009 Mar;36(3):946-52
references.pmid: 19378755