Multileaf Collimator Tracking Improves Dose Delivery for Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: Results of the First Clinical Trial
Purpose To test the hypothesis that multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking improves the consistency between the planned and delivered dose compared with the dose without MLC tracking, in the setting of a prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy trial. Methods and Materials Multileaf collimator...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics biology, physics, 2015-08, Vol.92 (5), p.1141-1147 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose To test the hypothesis that multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking improves the consistency between the planned and delivered dose compared with the dose without MLC tracking, in the setting of a prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy trial. Methods and Materials Multileaf collimator tracking was implemented for 15 patients in a prostate cancer radiation therapy trial; in total, 513 treatment fractions were delivered. During each treatment fraction, the prostate trajectory and treatment MLC positions were collected. These data were used as input for dose reconstruction (multiple isocenter shift method) to calculate the treated dose (with MLC tracking) and the dose that would have been delivered had MLC tracking not been applied (without MLC tracking). The percentage difference from planned for target and normal tissue dose-volume points were calculated. The hypothesis was tested for each dose-volume value via analysis of variance using the F test. Results Of the 513 fractions delivered, 475 (93%) were suitable for analysis. The mean difference and standard deviation between the planned and treated MLC tracking doses and the planned and without-MLC tracking doses for all 475 fractions were, respectively, PTV D99% −0.8% ± 1.1% versus −2.1% ± 2.7%; CTV D99% −0.6% ± 0.8% versus −0.6% ± 1.1%; rectum V65% 1.6% ± 7.9% versus −1.2% ± 18%; and bladder V65% 0.5% ± 4.4% versus −0.0% ± 9.2% ( P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0360-3016 1879-355X |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.04.024 |