A Monte Carlo study of the effect of an ultrasound transducer on surface dose during intrafraction motion imaging for external beam radiation therapy

Purpose The aim of this study was to estimate changes in surface dose due to the presence of the Clarity Autoscan™ ultrasound (US) probe during prostate radiotherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) methods. Methods MC models of the Autoscan US probe were developed using the BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc code based on kV...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2017-10, Vol.44 (10), p.5020-5033
Hauptverfasser: Martyn, Michael, O’Shea, Tuathan P., Harris, Emma, Bamber, Jeffrey, Gilroy, Stephen, Foley, Mark J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 5033
container_issue 10
container_start_page 5020
container_title Medical physics (Lancaster)
container_volume 44
creator Martyn, Michael
O’Shea, Tuathan P.
Harris, Emma
Bamber, Jeffrey
Gilroy, Stephen
Foley, Mark J.
description Purpose The aim of this study was to estimate changes in surface dose due to the presence of the Clarity Autoscan™ ultrasound (US) probe during prostate radiotherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) methods. Methods MC models of the Autoscan US probe were developed using the BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc code based on kV and MV CT images. CT datasets were converted to voxelized mass density phantoms using a CT number‐to‐mass density calibration. The dosimetric effect of the probe, in the contact region (an 8 mm × 12 mm single layer of voxels), was investigated using a phantom set‐up mimicking two scenarios (a) a transperineal imaging configuration (radiation beam perpendicular to the central US axial direction), and (b) a transabdominal imaging configuration (radiation beam parallel to the central US axial direction). For scenario (a), the dosimetric effect was evaluated as a function of the probe to inferior radiation field edge distance. Clinically applicable distances from 5 mm separation to 2 mm overlap were determined from the radiotherapy plans of 27 patients receiving Clarity imaging. Overlaps of 3 to 14 (1 to 3 SD) mm were also considered to include the effect of interfraction motion correction. The influence of voxel size on surface dose estimation was investigated. Approved clinical plans from two prostate patients were used to simulate worst‐case dosimetric impact of the probe when large couch translations were applied to correct for interfraction prostate motion. Results The dosimetric impact of both the MV and kV probe models agreed within ±2% for both beam configurations. For scenario (a) and 1 mm voxel model, the probe gave mean dose increases of 1.2% to 4.6% (of the dose at isocenter) for 5 mm separation to 0 mm overlap in the probe‐phantom contact region, respectively. This increased to 27.5% for the largest interfraction motion correction considered (14 mm overlap). For separations of ≥ 2 mm dose differences were < 2%. Simulated dose perturbations were found to be superficial; for the 14 mm overlap the dose increase reduced to < 3% at 5.0 mm within the phantom. For scenario (b), dose increases due to the probe were < 5% in all cases. The dose increase was underestimated by up to ~13% when the voxel size was increased from 1 mm to 3 mm. MC simulated dose to the PTV and OARs for the two clinical plans considered showed good agreement with commercial treatment planning system results (within 2%). Mean dose increases due to the presence of the probe, after the max
doi_str_mv 10.1002/mp.12464
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1917360364</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1917360364</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3214-f1d0c7fd5e23539b1b58d0e0978e32c52d5831f2fddc3ca59081b0fb027527483</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1PHDEMhqOqqCy0Un8ByrGXoc7XfBzRCmglEBzgPMokDh00k0yTiWB_SP8vs7tQTlz82vKj17JNyHcGpwyA_xynU8ZlKT-RFZeVKCSH5jNZATSy4BLUITlK6REASqHgCznkdVnXjKkV-XdGr4Ofka51HAJNc7YbGhyd_yBF59DM20p7moc56hSyt3RJfLLZYKTB05Sj0wapDWkJOfb-gfZ-YVzUZu4XYgw76Uf9sG26ECk-zxi9HmiHeqRR217vmGVs1NPmKzlwekj47VWPyf3F-d36V3F1c_l7fXZVGMGZLByzYCpnFXKhRNOxTtUWEJqqRsGN4lbVgjnurDXCaNVAzTpwHfBK8UrW4pj82PtOMfzNmOZ27JPBYdAeQ04ta1glShClfEdNDClFdO0Ul43ipmXQbp_QjlO7e8KCnry65m5E-x98u_oCFHvgqR9w86FRe327N3wBUDOSKQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1917360364</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Monte Carlo study of the effect of an ultrasound transducer on surface dose during intrafraction motion imaging for external beam radiation therapy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Martyn, Michael ; O’Shea, Tuathan P. ; Harris, Emma ; Bamber, Jeffrey ; Gilroy, Stephen ; Foley, Mark J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Martyn, Michael ; O’Shea, Tuathan P. ; Harris, Emma ; Bamber, Jeffrey ; Gilroy, Stephen ; Foley, Mark J.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose The aim of this study was to estimate changes in surface dose due to the presence of the Clarity Autoscan™ ultrasound (US) probe during prostate radiotherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) methods. Methods MC models of the Autoscan US probe were developed using the BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc code based on kV and MV CT images. CT datasets were converted to voxelized mass density phantoms using a CT number‐to‐mass density calibration. The dosimetric effect of the probe, in the contact region (an 8 mm × 12 mm single layer of voxels), was investigated using a phantom set‐up mimicking two scenarios (a) a transperineal imaging configuration (radiation beam perpendicular to the central US axial direction), and (b) a transabdominal imaging configuration (radiation beam parallel to the central US axial direction). For scenario (a), the dosimetric effect was evaluated as a function of the probe to inferior radiation field edge distance. Clinically applicable distances from 5 mm separation to 2 mm overlap were determined from the radiotherapy plans of 27 patients receiving Clarity imaging. Overlaps of 3 to 14 (1 to 3 SD) mm were also considered to include the effect of interfraction motion correction. The influence of voxel size on surface dose estimation was investigated. Approved clinical plans from two prostate patients were used to simulate worst‐case dosimetric impact of the probe when large couch translations were applied to correct for interfraction prostate motion. Results The dosimetric impact of both the MV and kV probe models agreed within ±2% for both beam configurations. For scenario (a) and 1 mm voxel model, the probe gave mean dose increases of 1.2% to 4.6% (of the dose at isocenter) for 5 mm separation to 0 mm overlap in the probe‐phantom contact region, respectively. This increased to 27.5% for the largest interfraction motion correction considered (14 mm overlap). For separations of ≥ 2 mm dose differences were &lt; 2%. Simulated dose perturbations were found to be superficial; for the 14 mm overlap the dose increase reduced to &lt; 3% at 5.0 mm within the phantom. For scenario (b), dose increases due to the probe were &lt; 5% in all cases. The dose increase was underestimated by up to ~13% when the voxel size was increased from 1 mm to 3 mm. MC simulated dose to the PTV and OARs for the two clinical plans considered showed good agreement with commercial treatment planning system results (within 2%). Mean dose increases due to the presence of the probe, after the maximum interfraction motion correction, were ~16.3% and ~8.0%, in the contact region, for plan 1 and plan 2, respectively. Conclusions The presence of the probe results in superficial dose perturbations for patients with an overlap between the probe and the radiation field present in either the original treatment plan or due to translation of the radiation field to simulate correction of interfraction internal prostate motion.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/mp.12464</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28688115</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Dose Fractionation, Radiation ; dosimetry ; Humans ; image‐guided radiotherapy ; Male ; Monte Carlo ; Monte Carlo Method ; Movement ; Phantoms, Imaging ; prostate cancer ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Transducers ; Ultrasonography - instrumentation ; ultrasound‐guided radiotherapy</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2017-10, Vol.44 (10), p.5020-5033</ispartof><rights>2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3214-f1d0c7fd5e23539b1b58d0e0978e32c52d5831f2fddc3ca59081b0fb027527483</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3214-f1d0c7fd5e23539b1b58d0e0978e32c52d5831f2fddc3ca59081b0fb027527483</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fmp.12464$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fmp.12464$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28688115$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Martyn, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Shea, Tuathan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bamber, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilroy, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foley, Mark J.</creatorcontrib><title>A Monte Carlo study of the effect of an ultrasound transducer on surface dose during intrafraction motion imaging for external beam radiation therapy</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose The aim of this study was to estimate changes in surface dose due to the presence of the Clarity Autoscan™ ultrasound (US) probe during prostate radiotherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) methods. Methods MC models of the Autoscan US probe were developed using the BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc code based on kV and MV CT images. CT datasets were converted to voxelized mass density phantoms using a CT number‐to‐mass density calibration. The dosimetric effect of the probe, in the contact region (an 8 mm × 12 mm single layer of voxels), was investigated using a phantom set‐up mimicking two scenarios (a) a transperineal imaging configuration (radiation beam perpendicular to the central US axial direction), and (b) a transabdominal imaging configuration (radiation beam parallel to the central US axial direction). For scenario (a), the dosimetric effect was evaluated as a function of the probe to inferior radiation field edge distance. Clinically applicable distances from 5 mm separation to 2 mm overlap were determined from the radiotherapy plans of 27 patients receiving Clarity imaging. Overlaps of 3 to 14 (1 to 3 SD) mm were also considered to include the effect of interfraction motion correction. The influence of voxel size on surface dose estimation was investigated. Approved clinical plans from two prostate patients were used to simulate worst‐case dosimetric impact of the probe when large couch translations were applied to correct for interfraction prostate motion. Results The dosimetric impact of both the MV and kV probe models agreed within ±2% for both beam configurations. For scenario (a) and 1 mm voxel model, the probe gave mean dose increases of 1.2% to 4.6% (of the dose at isocenter) for 5 mm separation to 0 mm overlap in the probe‐phantom contact region, respectively. This increased to 27.5% for the largest interfraction motion correction considered (14 mm overlap). For separations of ≥ 2 mm dose differences were &lt; 2%. Simulated dose perturbations were found to be superficial; for the 14 mm overlap the dose increase reduced to &lt; 3% at 5.0 mm within the phantom. For scenario (b), dose increases due to the probe were &lt; 5% in all cases. The dose increase was underestimated by up to ~13% when the voxel size was increased from 1 mm to 3 mm. MC simulated dose to the PTV and OARs for the two clinical plans considered showed good agreement with commercial treatment planning system results (within 2%). Mean dose increases due to the presence of the probe, after the maximum interfraction motion correction, were ~16.3% and ~8.0%, in the contact region, for plan 1 and plan 2, respectively. Conclusions The presence of the probe results in superficial dose perturbations for patients with an overlap between the probe and the radiation field present in either the original treatment plan or due to translation of the radiation field to simulate correction of interfraction internal prostate motion.</description><subject>Dose Fractionation, Radiation</subject><subject>dosimetry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>image‐guided radiotherapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Monte Carlo</subject><subject>Monte Carlo Method</subject><subject>Movement</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Transducers</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - instrumentation</subject><subject>ultrasound‐guided radiotherapy</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1PHDEMhqOqqCy0Un8ByrGXoc7XfBzRCmglEBzgPMokDh00k0yTiWB_SP8vs7tQTlz82vKj17JNyHcGpwyA_xynU8ZlKT-RFZeVKCSH5jNZATSy4BLUITlK6REASqHgCznkdVnXjKkV-XdGr4Ofka51HAJNc7YbGhyd_yBF59DM20p7moc56hSyt3RJfLLZYKTB05Sj0wapDWkJOfb-gfZ-YVzUZu4XYgw76Uf9sG26ECk-zxi9HmiHeqRR217vmGVs1NPmKzlwekj47VWPyf3F-d36V3F1c_l7fXZVGMGZLByzYCpnFXKhRNOxTtUWEJqqRsGN4lbVgjnurDXCaNVAzTpwHfBK8UrW4pj82PtOMfzNmOZ27JPBYdAeQ04ta1glShClfEdNDClFdO0Ul43ipmXQbp_QjlO7e8KCnry65m5E-x98u_oCFHvgqR9w86FRe327N3wBUDOSKQ</recordid><startdate>201710</startdate><enddate>201710</enddate><creator>Martyn, Michael</creator><creator>O’Shea, Tuathan P.</creator><creator>Harris, Emma</creator><creator>Bamber, Jeffrey</creator><creator>Gilroy, Stephen</creator><creator>Foley, Mark J.</creator><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></search><sort><creationdate>201710</creationdate><title>A Monte Carlo study of the effect of an ultrasound transducer on surface dose during intrafraction motion imaging for external beam radiation therapy</title><author>Martyn, Michael ; O’Shea, Tuathan P. ; Harris, Emma ; Bamber, Jeffrey ; Gilroy, Stephen ; Foley, Mark J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3214-f1d0c7fd5e23539b1b58d0e0978e32c52d5831f2fddc3ca59081b0fb027527483</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Dose Fractionation, Radiation</topic><topic>dosimetry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>image‐guided radiotherapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Monte Carlo</topic><topic>Monte Carlo Method</topic><topic>Movement</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Transducers</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - instrumentation</topic><topic>ultrasound‐guided radiotherapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Martyn, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Shea, Tuathan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bamber, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilroy, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foley, Mark J.</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><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Martyn, Michael</au><au>O’Shea, Tuathan P.</au><au>Harris, Emma</au><au>Bamber, Jeffrey</au><au>Gilroy, Stephen</au><au>Foley, Mark J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Monte Carlo study of the effect of an ultrasound transducer on surface dose during intrafraction motion imaging for external beam radiation therapy</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2017-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>5020</spage><epage>5033</epage><pages>5020-5033</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><abstract>Purpose The aim of this study was to estimate changes in surface dose due to the presence of the Clarity Autoscan™ ultrasound (US) probe during prostate radiotherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) methods. Methods MC models of the Autoscan US probe were developed using the BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc code based on kV and MV CT images. CT datasets were converted to voxelized mass density phantoms using a CT number‐to‐mass density calibration. The dosimetric effect of the probe, in the contact region (an 8 mm × 12 mm single layer of voxels), was investigated using a phantom set‐up mimicking two scenarios (a) a transperineal imaging configuration (radiation beam perpendicular to the central US axial direction), and (b) a transabdominal imaging configuration (radiation beam parallel to the central US axial direction). For scenario (a), the dosimetric effect was evaluated as a function of the probe to inferior radiation field edge distance. Clinically applicable distances from 5 mm separation to 2 mm overlap were determined from the radiotherapy plans of 27 patients receiving Clarity imaging. Overlaps of 3 to 14 (1 to 3 SD) mm were also considered to include the effect of interfraction motion correction. The influence of voxel size on surface dose estimation was investigated. Approved clinical plans from two prostate patients were used to simulate worst‐case dosimetric impact of the probe when large couch translations were applied to correct for interfraction prostate motion. Results The dosimetric impact of both the MV and kV probe models agreed within ±2% for both beam configurations. For scenario (a) and 1 mm voxel model, the probe gave mean dose increases of 1.2% to 4.6% (of the dose at isocenter) for 5 mm separation to 0 mm overlap in the probe‐phantom contact region, respectively. This increased to 27.5% for the largest interfraction motion correction considered (14 mm overlap). For separations of ≥ 2 mm dose differences were &lt; 2%. Simulated dose perturbations were found to be superficial; for the 14 mm overlap the dose increase reduced to &lt; 3% at 5.0 mm within the phantom. For scenario (b), dose increases due to the probe were &lt; 5% in all cases. The dose increase was underestimated by up to ~13% when the voxel size was increased from 1 mm to 3 mm. MC simulated dose to the PTV and OARs for the two clinical plans considered showed good agreement with commercial treatment planning system results (within 2%). Mean dose increases due to the presence of the probe, after the maximum interfraction motion correction, were ~16.3% and ~8.0%, in the contact region, for plan 1 and plan 2, respectively. Conclusions The presence of the probe results in superficial dose perturbations for patients with an overlap between the probe and the radiation field present in either the original treatment plan or due to translation of the radiation field to simulate correction of interfraction internal prostate motion.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>28688115</pmid><doi>10.1002/mp.12464</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0094-2405
ispartof Medical physics (Lancaster), 2017-10, Vol.44 (10), p.5020-5033
issn 0094-2405
2473-4209
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1917360364
source MEDLINE; Wiley Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Dose Fractionation, Radiation
dosimetry
Humans
image‐guided radiotherapy
Male
Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo Method
Movement
Phantoms, Imaging
prostate cancer
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Transducers
Ultrasonography - instrumentation
ultrasound‐guided radiotherapy
title A Monte Carlo study of the effect of an ultrasound transducer on surface dose during intrafraction motion imaging for external beam radiation therapy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T06%3A54%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Monte%20Carlo%20study%20of%20the%20effect%20of%20an%20ultrasound%20transducer%20on%20surface%20dose%20during%20intrafraction%20motion%20imaging%20for%20external%20beam%20radiation%20therapy&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Martyn,%20Michael&rft.date=2017-10&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=5020&rft.epage=5033&rft.pages=5020-5033&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/mp.12464&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1917360364%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1917360364&rft_id=info:pmid/28688115&rfr_iscdi=true