Independent dosimetric calculation with inclusion of head scatter and MLC transmission for IMRT.

Independent verification of the MU settings and dose calculation of IMRT treatment plans is an important step in the IMRT quality assurance (QA) procedure. At present, the verification is mainly based on experimental measurements, which are time consuming and labor intensive. Although a few simplified algorithms have recently been proposed for the independent dose (or MU) calculation, head scatter has not been precisely taken into account in all these investigations and the dose validation has mainly been limited to the central axis. In this work we developed an effective computer algorithm for IMRT MU and dose validation. The technique is superior to the currently available computer-based MU check systems in that (1) it takes full consideration of the head scatter and leaf transmission effects; and (2) it allows a precise dose calculation at an arbitrary spatial point instead of merely a point on the central axis. In the algorithm the dose at an arbitrary spatial point is expressed as a summation of the contributions of primary and scatter radiation from all beamlets. Each beamlet is modulated by a dynamic modulation factor (DMF), which is determined by the MLC leaf trajectories, the head scatter, the jaw positions, and the MLC leaf transmission. A three-source model was used to calculate the head scatter distribution for irregular segments shaped by MLC and the scatter dose contributions were computed using a modified Clarkson method. The system reads in MLC leaf sequence files (or RTP files) generated by the Corvus (NOMOS Corporation, Sewickley, PA) inverse planning system and then computes the doses at the desired points. The algorithm was applied to study the dose distributions of several testing intensity modulated fields and two multifield Corvus plans and the results were compared with Corvus plans and experimental measurements. The final dose calculations at most spatial points agreed with the experimental measurements to within 3% for both the specially designed testing fields and the clinical intensity modulated field. Furthermore, excellent agreement (mostly within +/- 3.0%) was also found between our independent calculation and the ion chamber measurements at both central axis and off-axis positions for the multifield Corvus IMRT plans. These results indicate that the approach is robust and valuable for routine clinical IMRT plan validation.

[1]  J. Palta,et al.  Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. , 1994, Medical physics.

[2]  J. Tsai,et al.  Dosimetric verification of the dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy of 92 patients. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  L. Xing,et al.  Independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated radiotherapy using the MIMiC multileaf collimator. , 2002, Medical physics.

[4]  E Brian Butler,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pediatric medulloblastoma: early report on the reduction of ototoxicity. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  D. Rogers,et al.  AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. , 1999, Medical physics.

[6]  R Mohan,et al.  The potential for sparing of parotids and escalation of biologically effective dose with intensity-modulated radiation treatments of head and neck cancers: a treatment design study. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  G T Chen,et al.  A monitor unit verification calculation in intensity modulated radiotherapy as a dosimetry quality assurance. , 2000, Medical physics.

[8]  D. Low,et al.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. , 1998, Medical physics.

[9]  R Mohan,et al.  A method for determining multileaf collimator transmission and scatter for dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 2000, Medical physics.

[10]  Lei Dong,et al.  Patient-specific point dose measurement for IMRT monitor unit verification. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  R Mohan,et al.  Conformal radiation treatment of prostate cancer using inversely-planned intensity-modulated photon beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  Lei Xing,et al.  A three-source model for the calculation of head scatter factors. , 2002, Medical physics.

[13]  John C Roeske,et al.  Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy in women with gynecologic malignancies. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  Y Chen,et al.  Monitor unit calculation for an intensity modulated photon field by a simple scatter-summation algorithm. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  D. Low,et al.  Quality assurance of serial tomotherapy for head and neck patient treatments. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  T LoSasso,et al.  Comprehensive quality assurance for the delivery of intensity modulated radiotherapy with a multileaf collimator used in the dynamic mode. , 2001, Medical physics.

[17]  James A. Purdy,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  R Mohan,et al.  Acceleration of dose calculations for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. , 2001, Medical physics.

[19]  K. Forster,et al.  Dosimetric verification of a commercial inverse treatment planning system. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  T. Solberg,et al.  Dynamic arc radiosurgery field shaping: a comparison with static field conformal and noncoplanar circular arcs. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  A L Boyer,et al.  Dosimetric effects of patient displacement and collimator and gantry angle misalignment on intensity modulated radiation therapy. , 2000, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[22]  A. Boyer,et al.  Inverse planning for functional image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  T C Zhu,et al.  Modeling the output ratio in air for megavoltage photon beams. , 2001, Medical physics.

[24]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Incorporating multi-leaf collimator leaf sequencing into iterative IMRT optimization. , 2002, Medical physics.

[25]  Y. Watanabe,et al.  Point dose calculations using an analytical pencil beam kernel for IMRT plan checking. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  J. Deasy,et al.  A prospective study of salivary function sparing in patients with head-and-neck cancers receiving intensity-modulated or three-dimensional radiation therapy: initial results. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[27]  S B Jiang,et al.  Monte Carlo verification of IMRT dose distributions from a commercial treatment planning optimization system. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  R. Mohan,et al.  The effect of dose calculation uncertainty on the evaluation of radiotherapy plans. , 2000, Medical physics.

[29]  F M Khan,et al.  Calculation of dose in asymmetric photon fields. , 1995, Medical physics.