Quantification of dose uncertainties in cumulated dose estimation compared to planned dose in prostate IMRT

Abstract Background and purpose In prostate IMRT, the objectives were to quantify, for the bladder and the rectum: (i) the dose difference (DD) between the planned dose (PD) and the estimated cumulated dose (ECD) by deformable image registration (DIR); (ii) the dose accumulation uncertainties (DAU)....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiotherapy and oncology 2016-04, Vol.119 (1), p.129-136
Hauptverfasser: Nassef, Mohamed, Simon, Antoine, Cazoulat, Guillaume, Duménil, Aurélien, Blay, Christophe, Lafond, Caroline, Acosta, Oscar, Balosso, Jacques, Haigron, Pascal, de Crevoisier, Renaud
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 136
container_issue 1
container_start_page 129
container_title Radiotherapy and oncology
container_volume 119
creator Nassef, Mohamed
Simon, Antoine
Cazoulat, Guillaume
Duménil, Aurélien
Blay, Christophe
Lafond, Caroline
Acosta, Oscar
Balosso, Jacques
Haigron, Pascal
de Crevoisier, Renaud
description Abstract Background and purpose In prostate IMRT, the objectives were to quantify, for the bladder and the rectum: (i) the dose difference (DD) between the planned dose (PD) and the estimated cumulated dose (ECD) by deformable image registration (DIR); (ii) the dose accumulation uncertainties (DAU). Materials and methods A series of 24 patients receiving 80 Gy in the prostate was used to calculate the ECDpts and the DDpts . To evaluate the DAU, a numerical phantom (ph) simulating deformations of main pelvic organs was used to calculate the ECDph using the same DIR method. A reference cumulated dose (RCDph ) was calculated, based on the simulated deformations. The DAUph was defined by the differences between RCDph and ECDph. Results For the mean dose to the bladder, the standard deviation of DDpts was 6.9 Gy (18.1 Gy maximum) with a DAUph of 2.7 Gy. For the rectum wall, it was 2.0 Gy (4.2 Gy maximum) with a DAUph of 1.2 Gy. Volume differences between PDpts and ECDpts , along the dose–volume histogram, ranged from −30% to +37% and −14% to +14% for the bladder and rectum, respectively. The corresponding uncertainties ranged from −23% to +7% and −4% to +7% for the bladder and rectum, respectively. Conclusions Large differences between planned and delivered doses to the bladder have been quantified and are higher than the uncertainties of the DIR method. For the rectum, the differences are smaller and close to the DIR uncertainties.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01301536v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167814016001298</els_id><sourcerecordid>1784746744</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-d4933ca46651c97b7bf0fe5e82fe66a67a65ba67407dcadad5c9088d0e9e8da83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUk1P3DAQtapWZUv7D6oqx_aQdBwndnKphBAtSIsQlJ4trz1RvSTx1k6Q-PdMFODQC6eR_d6brzeMfeZQcODy-76IxoXRFiW9ChAFgHrDNrxRbQ5No96yDQEqb3gFR-xDSnsAKEGo9-yolG0rKi437O56NuPkO2_N5MOYhS5zIWE2jxbjZDxhmDI_ZnYe5t5M6FYc0-SHVWLDcDCRgClkh96M4zOHVIcY0kSq7OLy5vYje9eZPuGnp3jM_vw8uz09z7dXvy5OT7a5rbmacle1QlhTSVlz26qd2nXQYY1N2aGURioj6x2FCpSzxhlX25YGdoAtNs404ph9W_P-Nb0-ROozPuhgvD4_2erlD7gAXgt5z4n7deVSp_9mmkoPPlnsaQ4Mc9JcNZWqqFhF1GqlWhoqRexecnPQiyV6r1dL9GKJBqHJEpJ9eaow7wZ0L6JnD4jwYyUg7eTeY9TJeqT9Ox_RTtoF_1qF_xPY3o_kaH-HD5j2YY4j7VtznUoN-vdyFstVcAnAy7YRj0fMtKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1784746744</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantification of dose uncertainties in cumulated dose estimation compared to planned dose in prostate IMRT</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Nassef, Mohamed ; Simon, Antoine ; Cazoulat, Guillaume ; Duménil, Aurélien ; Blay, Christophe ; Lafond, Caroline ; Acosta, Oscar ; Balosso, Jacques ; Haigron, Pascal ; de Crevoisier, Renaud</creator><creatorcontrib>Nassef, Mohamed ; Simon, Antoine ; Cazoulat, Guillaume ; Duménil, Aurélien ; Blay, Christophe ; Lafond, Caroline ; Acosta, Oscar ; Balosso, Jacques ; Haigron, Pascal ; de Crevoisier, Renaud</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background and purpose In prostate IMRT, the objectives were to quantify, for the bladder and the rectum: (i) the dose difference (DD) between the planned dose (PD) and the estimated cumulated dose (ECD) by deformable image registration (DIR); (ii) the dose accumulation uncertainties (DAU). Materials and methods A series of 24 patients receiving 80 Gy in the prostate was used to calculate the ECDpts and the DDpts . To evaluate the DAU, a numerical phantom (ph) simulating deformations of main pelvic organs was used to calculate the ECDph using the same DIR method. A reference cumulated dose (RCDph ) was calculated, based on the simulated deformations. The DAUph was defined by the differences between RCDph and ECDph. Results For the mean dose to the bladder, the standard deviation of DDpts was 6.9 Gy (18.1 Gy maximum) with a DAUph of 2.7 Gy. For the rectum wall, it was 2.0 Gy (4.2 Gy maximum) with a DAUph of 1.2 Gy. Volume differences between PDpts and ECDpts , along the dose–volume histogram, ranged from −30% to +37% and −14% to +14% for the bladder and rectum, respectively. The corresponding uncertainties ranged from −23% to +7% and −4% to +7% for the bladder and rectum, respectively. Conclusions Large differences between planned and delivered doses to the bladder have been quantified and are higher than the uncertainties of the DIR method. For the rectum, the differences are smaller and close to the DIR uncertainties.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-8140</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0887</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26993416</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Bioengineering ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; Cumulative dose ; Deformable image registration ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Humans ; IGRT ; Life Sciences ; Male ; Phantom ; Prostate ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ; Rectum - radiation effects ; Uncertainty ; Urinary Bladder - radiation effects</subject><ispartof>Radiotherapy and oncology, 2016-04, Vol.119 (1), p.129-136</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-d4933ca46651c97b7bf0fe5e82fe66a67a65ba67407dcadad5c9088d0e9e8da83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-d4933ca46651c97b7bf0fe5e82fe66a67a65ba67407dcadad5c9088d0e9e8da83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6095-4397</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26993416$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://univ-rennes.hal.science/hal-01301536$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nassef, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Antoine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cazoulat, Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duménil, Aurélien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blay, Christophe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lafond, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Acosta, Oscar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balosso, Jacques</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haigron, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Crevoisier, Renaud</creatorcontrib><title>Quantification of dose uncertainties in cumulated dose estimation compared to planned dose in prostate IMRT</title><title>Radiotherapy and oncology</title><addtitle>Radiother Oncol</addtitle><description>Abstract Background and purpose In prostate IMRT, the objectives were to quantify, for the bladder and the rectum: (i) the dose difference (DD) between the planned dose (PD) and the estimated cumulated dose (ECD) by deformable image registration (DIR); (ii) the dose accumulation uncertainties (DAU). Materials and methods A series of 24 patients receiving 80 Gy in the prostate was used to calculate the ECDpts and the DDpts . To evaluate the DAU, a numerical phantom (ph) simulating deformations of main pelvic organs was used to calculate the ECDph using the same DIR method. A reference cumulated dose (RCDph ) was calculated, based on the simulated deformations. The DAUph was defined by the differences between RCDph and ECDph. Results For the mean dose to the bladder, the standard deviation of DDpts was 6.9 Gy (18.1 Gy maximum) with a DAUph of 2.7 Gy. For the rectum wall, it was 2.0 Gy (4.2 Gy maximum) with a DAUph of 1.2 Gy. Volume differences between PDpts and ECDpts , along the dose–volume histogram, ranged from −30% to +37% and −14% to +14% for the bladder and rectum, respectively. The corresponding uncertainties ranged from −23% to +7% and −4% to +7% for the bladder and rectum, respectively. Conclusions Large differences between planned and delivered doses to the bladder have been quantified and are higher than the uncertainties of the DIR method. For the rectum, the differences are smaller and close to the DIR uncertainties.</description><subject>Bioengineering</subject><subject>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</subject><subject>Cumulative dose</subject><subject>Deformable image registration</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>IGRT</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Phantom</subject><subject>Prostate</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</subject><subject>Rectum - radiation effects</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder - radiation effects</subject><issn>0167-8140</issn><issn>1879-0887</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUk1P3DAQtapWZUv7D6oqx_aQdBwndnKphBAtSIsQlJ4trz1RvSTx1k6Q-PdMFODQC6eR_d6brzeMfeZQcODy-76IxoXRFiW9ChAFgHrDNrxRbQ5No96yDQEqb3gFR-xDSnsAKEGo9-yolG0rKi437O56NuPkO2_N5MOYhS5zIWE2jxbjZDxhmDI_ZnYe5t5M6FYc0-SHVWLDcDCRgClkh96M4zOHVIcY0kSq7OLy5vYje9eZPuGnp3jM_vw8uz09z7dXvy5OT7a5rbmacle1QlhTSVlz26qd2nXQYY1N2aGURioj6x2FCpSzxhlX25YGdoAtNs404ph9W_P-Nb0-ROozPuhgvD4_2erlD7gAXgt5z4n7deVSp_9mmkoPPlnsaQ4Mc9JcNZWqqFhF1GqlWhoqRexecnPQiyV6r1dL9GKJBqHJEpJ9eaow7wZ0L6JnD4jwYyUg7eTeY9TJeqT9Ox_RTtoF_1qF_xPY3o_kaH-HD5j2YY4j7VtznUoN-vdyFstVcAnAy7YRj0fMtKg</recordid><startdate>20160401</startdate><enddate>20160401</enddate><creator>Nassef, Mohamed</creator><creator>Simon, Antoine</creator><creator>Cazoulat, Guillaume</creator><creator>Duménil, Aurélien</creator><creator>Blay, Christophe</creator><creator>Lafond, Caroline</creator><creator>Acosta, Oscar</creator><creator>Balosso, Jacques</creator><creator>Haigron, Pascal</creator><creator>de Crevoisier, Renaud</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6095-4397</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160401</creationdate><title>Quantification of dose uncertainties in cumulated dose estimation compared to planned dose in prostate IMRT</title><author>Nassef, Mohamed ; Simon, Antoine ; Cazoulat, Guillaume ; Duménil, Aurélien ; Blay, Christophe ; Lafond, Caroline ; Acosta, Oscar ; Balosso, Jacques ; Haigron, Pascal ; de Crevoisier, Renaud</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-d4933ca46651c97b7bf0fe5e82fe66a67a65ba67407dcadad5c9088d0e9e8da83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Bioengineering</topic><topic>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</topic><topic>Cumulative dose</topic><topic>Deformable image registration</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>IGRT</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Phantom</topic><topic>Prostate</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</topic><topic>Rectum - radiation effects</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder - radiation effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nassef, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Antoine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cazoulat, Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duménil, Aurélien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blay, Christophe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lafond, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Acosta, Oscar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balosso, Jacques</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haigron, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Crevoisier, Renaud</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Radiotherapy and oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nassef, Mohamed</au><au>Simon, Antoine</au><au>Cazoulat, Guillaume</au><au>Duménil, Aurélien</au><au>Blay, Christophe</au><au>Lafond, Caroline</au><au>Acosta, Oscar</au><au>Balosso, Jacques</au><au>Haigron, Pascal</au><au>de Crevoisier, Renaud</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantification of dose uncertainties in cumulated dose estimation compared to planned dose in prostate IMRT</atitle><jtitle>Radiotherapy and oncology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiother Oncol</addtitle><date>2016-04-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>119</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>129</spage><epage>136</epage><pages>129-136</pages><issn>0167-8140</issn><eissn>1879-0887</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background and purpose In prostate IMRT, the objectives were to quantify, for the bladder and the rectum: (i) the dose difference (DD) between the planned dose (PD) and the estimated cumulated dose (ECD) by deformable image registration (DIR); (ii) the dose accumulation uncertainties (DAU). Materials and methods A series of 24 patients receiving 80 Gy in the prostate was used to calculate the ECDpts and the DDpts . To evaluate the DAU, a numerical phantom (ph) simulating deformations of main pelvic organs was used to calculate the ECDph using the same DIR method. A reference cumulated dose (RCDph ) was calculated, based on the simulated deformations. The DAUph was defined by the differences between RCDph and ECDph. Results For the mean dose to the bladder, the standard deviation of DDpts was 6.9 Gy (18.1 Gy maximum) with a DAUph of 2.7 Gy. For the rectum wall, it was 2.0 Gy (4.2 Gy maximum) with a DAUph of 1.2 Gy. Volume differences between PDpts and ECDpts , along the dose–volume histogram, ranged from −30% to +37% and −14% to +14% for the bladder and rectum, respectively. The corresponding uncertainties ranged from −23% to +7% and −4% to +7% for the bladder and rectum, respectively. Conclusions Large differences between planned and delivered doses to the bladder have been quantified and are higher than the uncertainties of the DIR method. For the rectum, the differences are smaller and close to the DIR uncertainties.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>26993416</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.007</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6095-4397</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-8140
ispartof Radiotherapy and oncology, 2016-04, Vol.119 (1), p.129-136
issn 0167-8140
1879-0887
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01301536v1
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Bioengineering
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Cumulative dose
Deformable image registration
Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine
Humans
IGRT
Life Sciences
Male
Phantom
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
Rectum - radiation effects
Uncertainty
Urinary Bladder - radiation effects
title Quantification of dose uncertainties in cumulated dose estimation compared to planned dose in prostate IMRT
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T17%3A58%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantification%20of%20dose%20uncertainties%20in%20cumulated%20dose%20estimation%20compared%20to%20planned%20dose%20in%20prostate%20IMRT&rft.jtitle=Radiotherapy%20and%20oncology&rft.au=Nassef,%20Mohamed&rft.date=2016-04-01&rft.volume=119&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=129&rft.epage=136&rft.pages=129-136&rft.issn=0167-8140&rft.eissn=1879-0887&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E1784746744%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1784746744&rft_id=info:pmid/26993416&rft_els_id=S0167814016001298&rfr_iscdi=true