Monte Carlo-based software for 3D personalized dose calculations in image-guided radiotherapy.
Breast
CBCT, Cone Beam Computed Tomography
Head-and-neck
IGRT
IGRT, Image Guided Radiotherapy
MC, Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo dose calculation
Personalized dose
Prostate
Journal
Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6316
Titre abrégé: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101704276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
13
10
2021
revised:
28
01
2022
accepted:
11
02
2022
entrez:
4
3
2022
pubmed:
5
3
2022
medline:
5
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) involves frequent in-room imaging sessions contributing to additional patient irradiation. The present work provided patient-specific dosimetric data related to different imaging protocols and anatomical sites. We developed a Monte Carlo based software able to calculate 3D personalized dose distributions for five imaging devices delivering kV-CBCT (Elekta and Varian linacs), MV-CT (Tomotherapy machines) and 2D-kV stereoscopic images from BrainLab and Accuray. Our study reported the dose distributions calculated for pelvis, head and neck and breast cases based on dose volume histograms for several organs at risk. 2D-kV imaging provided the minimum dose with less than 1 mGy per image pair. For a single kV-CBCT and MV-CT, median dose to organs were respectively around 30 mGy and 15 mGy for the pelvis, around 7 mGy and 10 mGy for the head and neck and around 5 mGy and 15 mGy for the breast. While MV-CT dose varied sparsely with tissues, dose from kV imaging was around 1.7 times higher in bones than in soft tissue. Daily kV-CBCT along 40 sessions of prostate radiotherapy delivered up to 3.5 Gy to the femoral heads. The dose level for head and neck and breast appeared to be lower than 0.4 Gy for every organ in case of a daily imaging session. This study showed the dosimetric impact of IGRT procedures. Acquisition parameters should therefore be chosen wisely depending on the clinical purposes and tailored to morphology. Indeed, imaging dose could be reduced up to a factor 10 with optimized protocols.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) involves frequent in-room imaging sessions contributing to additional patient irradiation. The present work provided patient-specific dosimetric data related to different imaging protocols and anatomical sites.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
We developed a Monte Carlo based software able to calculate 3D personalized dose distributions for five imaging devices delivering kV-CBCT (Elekta and Varian linacs), MV-CT (Tomotherapy machines) and 2D-kV stereoscopic images from BrainLab and Accuray. Our study reported the dose distributions calculated for pelvis, head and neck and breast cases based on dose volume histograms for several organs at risk.
RESULTS
RESULTS
2D-kV imaging provided the minimum dose with less than 1 mGy per image pair. For a single kV-CBCT and MV-CT, median dose to organs were respectively around 30 mGy and 15 mGy for the pelvis, around 7 mGy and 10 mGy for the head and neck and around 5 mGy and 15 mGy for the breast. While MV-CT dose varied sparsely with tissues, dose from kV imaging was around 1.7 times higher in bones than in soft tissue. Daily kV-CBCT along 40 sessions of prostate radiotherapy delivered up to 3.5 Gy to the femoral heads. The dose level for head and neck and breast appeared to be lower than 0.4 Gy for every organ in case of a daily imaging session.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed the dosimetric impact of IGRT procedures. Acquisition parameters should therefore be chosen wisely depending on the clinical purposes and tailored to morphology. Indeed, imaging dose could be reduced up to a factor 10 with optimized protocols.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35243041
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.02.004
pii: S2405-6316(22)00010-0
pmc: PMC8885460
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
108-114Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Dec;97(3):485-7
pubmed: 20817286
Cancer Radiother. 2021 Dec;25(8):790-794
pubmed: 33390319
Phys Med Biol. 1996 Jan;41(1):111-24
pubmed: 8685250
Med Phys. 2018 May;45(5):e84-e99
pubmed: 29468678
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Sep 1;87(1):33-45
pubmed: 23664076
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 May 06;14(3):4085
pubmed: 23652243
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec;9(12):688-99
pubmed: 23165124
Mol Oncol. 2020 Jul;14(7):1470-1491
pubmed: 32536001
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2007 Oct;17(4):258-67
pubmed: 17903703
Phys Med. 2015 Nov;31(7):647-58
pubmed: 26148865
Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1055):20150364
pubmed: 26419892
Med Phys. 2020 Sep;47(9):4531-4542
pubmed: 32497267
Phys Med. 2019 Jul;63:70-78
pubmed: 31221412
Oncotarget. 2017 Mar 21;8(12):20179-20186
pubmed: 28423624