On the dose to a moving target while employing different IMRT delivery mechanisms

Eric D. Ehler, Benjamin E. Nelms, Wolfgang A. Tomé

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

33 Scopus citations


Background and purposes: To compare the temporal uniformity in dose delivered to a moving target for various intensity modulation radiotherapy (IMRT) modalities: solid intensity modulator (SIM), segmented multi-leaf collimator (SMLC), and dynamic multi-leaf collimator (DMLC). Materials and methods: Two separate four-dimensional computed tomography data sets were obtained. Tumor motion kernels and motion envelopes were determined from composite positions of the tumor in various phases of the breathing cycle. Treatment plans were created for an unmodulated open field, SIM, SMLC, and DMLC. The motion envelope was treated as a static target volume. A robotic apparatus equipped with a diode array simulated the tumor motion in the plane of the beam's eye view (BEV). Radiation was delivered to the moving target over ten trials for each modality. The average coefficient of variation (CV) was determined for each beam angle. Results: The CV ranged from 0.09% to 0.15%, 0.23% to 3.14%, 1.14% to 5.51%, and 3.83% to 8.25% for the unmodulated open field, SIM, SMLC, and DMLC modalities, respectively. With gating, the CV was 0.23% to 2.31%, 0.31% to 2.97%, and 0.7% to 4.67% for SIM, SMLC, and DMLC, respectively. Conclusion: SIM consistently provided the most temporally uniform dose to the moving target while DMLC provided the least. The SMLC and DMLC CV improved with gated delivery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)49-56
Number of pages8
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Apr 1 2007
Externally publishedYes


  • 4D IMRT
  • Gated IMRT delivery
  • Gating
  • Intrafraction motion
  • Temporal dose uniformity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'On the dose to a moving target while employing different IMRT delivery mechanisms'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this