Dosimetric impact of geometric errors due to respiratory motion prediction on dynamic multileaf collimator-based four-dimensional radiation delivery.

The synchronization of dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) response with respiratory motion is critical to ensure the accuracy of DMLC-based four dimensional (4D) radiation delivery. In practice, however, a finite time delay (response time) between the acquisition of tumor position and multileaf collimator response necessitates predictive models of respiratory tumor motion to synchronize radiation delivery. Predicting a complex process such as respiratory motion introduces geometric errors, which have been reported in several publications. However, the dosimetric effect of such errors on 4D radiation delivery has not yet been investigated. Thus, our aim in this work was to quantify the dosimetric effects of geometric error due to prediction under several different conditions. Conformal and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for a lung patient were generated for anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) beam arrangements at 6 and 18 MV energies to provide planned dose distributions. Respiratory motion data was obtained from 60 diaphragm-motion fluoroscopy recordings from five patients. A linear adaptive filter was employed to predict the tumor position. The geometric error of prediction was defined as the absolute difference between predicted and actual positions at each diaphragm position. Distributions of geometric error of prediction were obtained for all of the respiratory motion data. Planned dose distributions were then convolved with distributions for the geometric error of prediction to obtain convolved dose distributions. The dosimetric effect of such geometric errors was determined as a function of several variables: response time (0-0.6 s), beam energy (6∕18MV), treatment delivery (3D∕4D), treatment type (conformal/IMRT), beam direction (AP/PA), and breathing training type (free breathing/audio instruction/visual feedback). Dose difference and distance-to-agreement analysis was employed to quantify results. Based on our data, the dosimetric impact of prediction (a) increased with response time, (b) was larger for 3D radiation therapy as compared with 4D radiation therapy, (c) was relatively insensitive to change in beam energy and beam direction, (d) was greater for IMRT distributions as compared with conformal distributions, (e) was smaller than the dosimetric impact of latency, and (f) was greatest for respiration motion with audio instructions, followed by visual feedback and free breathing. Geometric errors of prediction that occur during 4D radiation delivery introduce dosimetric errors that are dependent on several factors, such as response time, treatment-delivery type, and beam energy. Even for relatively small response times of 0.6 s into the future, dosimetric errors due to prediction could approach delivery errors when respiratory motion is not accounted for at all. To reduce the dosimetric impact, better predictive models and/or shorter response times are required.