iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38425148/
The use of dose surface maps as a tool to investigate spatial dose delivery accuracy for the rectum during prostate radiotherapy - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul;25(7):e14314.
doi: 10.1002/acm2.14314. Epub 2024 Feb 29.

The use of dose surface maps as a tool to investigate spatial dose delivery accuracy for the rectum during prostate radiotherapy

Affiliations

The use of dose surface maps as a tool to investigate spatial dose delivery accuracy for the rectum during prostate radiotherapy

Haley M Patrick et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to address the lack of spatial dose comparisons of planned and delivered rectal doses during prostate radiotherapy by using dose-surface maps (DSMs) to analyze dose delivery accuracy and comparing these results to those derived using DVHs.

Methods: Two independent cohorts were used in this study: twenty patients treated with 36.25 Gy in five fractions (SBRT) and 20 treated with 60 Gy in 20 fractions (IMRT). Daily delivered rectum doses for each patient were retrospectively calculated using daily CBCT images. For each cohort, planned and average-delivered DVHs were generated and compared, as were planned and accumulated DSMs. Permutation testing was used to identify DVH metrics and DSM regions where significant dose differences occurred. Changes in rectal volume and position between planning and delivery were also evaluated to determine possible correlation to dosimetric changes.

Results: For both cohorts, DVHs and DSMs reported conflicting findings on how planned and delivered rectum doses differed from each other. DVH analysis determined average-delivered DVHs were on average 7.1% ± 7.6% (p ≤ 0.002) and 5.0 ± 7.4% (p ≤ 0.021) higher than planned for the IMRT and SBRT cohorts, respectively. Meanwhile, DSM analysis found average delivered posterior rectal wall dose was 3.8 ± 0.6 Gy (p = 0.014) lower than planned in the IMRT cohort and no significant dose differences in the SBRT cohort. Observed dose differences were moderately correlated with anterior-posterior rectal wall motion, as well as PTV superior-inferior motion in the IMRT cohort. Evidence of both these relationships were discernable in DSMs.

Conclusion: DSMs enabled spatial investigations of planned and delivered doses can uncover associations with interfraction motion that are otherwise masked in DVHs. Investigations of dose delivery accuracy in radiotherapy may benefit from using DSMs over DVHs for certain organs such as the rectum.

Keywords: SBRT; dose delivery; dose reconstruction; prostate; radiotherapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Average planned and delivered DVHs and cohort‐average dose difference maps for the IMRT (a, c) and SBRT (b, d) cohorts. Shaded regions around the DVHs represent standard uncertainty of the mean, and subregions with statistically significant dose differences are contoured in black.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Example results for three patients from the IMRT (60 Gy in 20 fractions) cohort. (Left) Planned and average‐delivered DVHs and (Right) planned minus accumulated dose difference maps (DDMs), in units of Gy. Standard uncertainty of the mean for the average‐delivered DVH is depicted as the shaded region and subregions with statistically significant dose differences are outlined in black. Patients are identified by the grey labels.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Example results for three patients from the SBRT (36.25 Gy in five fractions) cohort. (Left) Planned and average‐delivered DVHs and (Right) planned minus accumulated dose difference maps (DDMs), in units of Gy. Standard uncertainty of the mean for the average‐delivered DVH is depicted as the shaded region and subregions with statistically significant dose differences are outlined in black. Patients are identified by the grey labels.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Violin plots of the relative change (planned minus delivered, relative to planned value) in daily rectal volume from planning value for the overall IMRT and SBRT cohorts (All), as well as individually numbered patients. Statistically significant results are indicated in red. Distribution medians are shown as rectangular markers.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Mean rectal wall and PTV positions at planning and during treatment for the IMRT (a) and SBRT (b) cohorts, as well as their mean positions over the first (c) and last (d) five fractions for the IMRT cohort. Shaded regions indicate standard uncertainty of the mean, with purple areas indicating regions of statistically significant anterior‐posterior shifts.

Similar articles

References

    1. De Crevoisier R, Tucker SL, Dong L, et al. Increased risk of biochemical and local failure in patients with distended rectum on the planning CT for prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62(4):965‐973. - PubMed
    1. Zelefsky MJ, Kollmeier M, Cox B, et al. Improved clinical outcomes with high‐dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non‐IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(1):125‐129. - PubMed
    1. Haaren PM, Bel A, Hofman P, Vulpen M, Kotte AN, Heide UA. Influence of daily setup measurements and corrections on the estimated delivered dose during IMRT treatment of prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2009;90(3):291‐298. - PubMed
    1. Fraser DJ, Chen Y, Poon E, Cury FL, Falco T, Verhaegen F. Dosimetric consequences of misalignment and realignment in prostate 3DCRT using intramodality ultrasound image guidance. Medical Physics. 2010. - PubMed
    1. Godley A, Ahunbay E, Peng C, Li XA. Accumulating daily‐varied dose distribu‐ tions of prostate radiation therapy with soft‐tissue‐based KV CT guidance. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13(3):3859. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms