WE‐D‐224A‐03: A 4D IMRT QA Device

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Many radiation therapy targets move during treatment. Some emerging technologies allow clinicians to accurately define and prescribe to “Tumor Motion Envelopes” (TME). In the case of IMRT delivery, clinicians must consider the temporal nature of the modulation in association with the target motion within the TME. There is a need for a 4D IMRT QA device that can incorporate and analyze customized intrafractional motion. Method and Materials: (X, Y, Z)(T) coordinates representing a motion kernel were entered into a software application. The software transformed the kernel into a beam‐specific projection, previewed the motion in real time, and drove a precision X‐Y motorized device. An existing planar IMRT QA measurement device (MapCHECK) was mounted on the device. The subset of measurement positions that intersected the target in the beam's‐eye‐view of a single phase of the breathing cycle were defined as “tumor‐rays” and analyzed for dose uniformity between multiple fractions. Results: In the first efficacy study, two lung patient target motion kernels were derived from 4D CT studies. From each kernels, a TME was formed by convolving the motion kernel with the single‐phase target volume. Dose was prescribed to the TME and delivered with open fields and three IMRT modalities — solid modulators, SMLC, and DMLC — for comparison. The 4D IMRT QA device effectively collected tumor‐ray data and allowed the analysis of degradation in dose uniformity due to a moving target within a static TME. Gating techniques were considered as well. Conclusion: The combined software and hardware solution for customized 4D IMRT QA proved to be an effective tool for assessing IMRT delivery under conditions of intrafractional motion. It was also an interesting tool for the assessment of delivery gating. Conflict of Interest: Research partially sponsored by Sun Nuclear Corporation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2247
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume33
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Software
Neoplasms
Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography
Conflict of Interest
Solar System
Respiration
Radiotherapy
Technology
Lung
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

WE‐D‐224A‐03 : A 4D IMRT QA Device. / Nelms, B.; Tome, Wolfgang A.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2006, p. 2247.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nelms, B. ; Tome, Wolfgang A. / WE‐D‐224A‐03 : A 4D IMRT QA Device. In: Medical Physics. 2006 ; Vol. 33, No. 6. pp. 2247.
@article{0a559b23c2c9476b836edf0a7a62ebb1,
title = "WE‐D‐224A‐03: A 4D IMRT QA Device",
abstract = "Purpose: Many radiation therapy targets move during treatment. Some emerging technologies allow clinicians to accurately define and prescribe to “Tumor Motion Envelopes” (TME). In the case of IMRT delivery, clinicians must consider the temporal nature of the modulation in association with the target motion within the TME. There is a need for a 4D IMRT QA device that can incorporate and analyze customized intrafractional motion. Method and Materials: (X, Y, Z)(T) coordinates representing a motion kernel were entered into a software application. The software transformed the kernel into a beam‐specific projection, previewed the motion in real time, and drove a precision X‐Y motorized device. An existing planar IMRT QA measurement device (MapCHECK) was mounted on the device. The subset of measurement positions that intersected the target in the beam's‐eye‐view of a single phase of the breathing cycle were defined as “tumor‐rays” and analyzed for dose uniformity between multiple fractions. Results: In the first efficacy study, two lung patient target motion kernels were derived from 4D CT studies. From each kernels, a TME was formed by convolving the motion kernel with the single‐phase target volume. Dose was prescribed to the TME and delivered with open fields and three IMRT modalities — solid modulators, SMLC, and DMLC — for comparison. The 4D IMRT QA device effectively collected tumor‐ray data and allowed the analysis of degradation in dose uniformity due to a moving target within a static TME. Gating techniques were considered as well. Conclusion: The combined software and hardware solution for customized 4D IMRT QA proved to be an effective tool for assessing IMRT delivery under conditions of intrafractional motion. It was also an interesting tool for the assessment of delivery gating. Conflict of Interest: Research partially sponsored by Sun Nuclear Corporation.",
author = "B. Nelms and Tome, {Wolfgang A.}",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1118/1.2241773",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "2247",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - WE‐D‐224A‐03

T2 - A 4D IMRT QA Device

AU - Nelms, B.

AU - Tome, Wolfgang A.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Purpose: Many radiation therapy targets move during treatment. Some emerging technologies allow clinicians to accurately define and prescribe to “Tumor Motion Envelopes” (TME). In the case of IMRT delivery, clinicians must consider the temporal nature of the modulation in association with the target motion within the TME. There is a need for a 4D IMRT QA device that can incorporate and analyze customized intrafractional motion. Method and Materials: (X, Y, Z)(T) coordinates representing a motion kernel were entered into a software application. The software transformed the kernel into a beam‐specific projection, previewed the motion in real time, and drove a precision X‐Y motorized device. An existing planar IMRT QA measurement device (MapCHECK) was mounted on the device. The subset of measurement positions that intersected the target in the beam's‐eye‐view of a single phase of the breathing cycle were defined as “tumor‐rays” and analyzed for dose uniformity between multiple fractions. Results: In the first efficacy study, two lung patient target motion kernels were derived from 4D CT studies. From each kernels, a TME was formed by convolving the motion kernel with the single‐phase target volume. Dose was prescribed to the TME and delivered with open fields and three IMRT modalities — solid modulators, SMLC, and DMLC — for comparison. The 4D IMRT QA device effectively collected tumor‐ray data and allowed the analysis of degradation in dose uniformity due to a moving target within a static TME. Gating techniques were considered as well. Conclusion: The combined software and hardware solution for customized 4D IMRT QA proved to be an effective tool for assessing IMRT delivery under conditions of intrafractional motion. It was also an interesting tool for the assessment of delivery gating. Conflict of Interest: Research partially sponsored by Sun Nuclear Corporation.

AB - Purpose: Many radiation therapy targets move during treatment. Some emerging technologies allow clinicians to accurately define and prescribe to “Tumor Motion Envelopes” (TME). In the case of IMRT delivery, clinicians must consider the temporal nature of the modulation in association with the target motion within the TME. There is a need for a 4D IMRT QA device that can incorporate and analyze customized intrafractional motion. Method and Materials: (X, Y, Z)(T) coordinates representing a motion kernel were entered into a software application. The software transformed the kernel into a beam‐specific projection, previewed the motion in real time, and drove a precision X‐Y motorized device. An existing planar IMRT QA measurement device (MapCHECK) was mounted on the device. The subset of measurement positions that intersected the target in the beam's‐eye‐view of a single phase of the breathing cycle were defined as “tumor‐rays” and analyzed for dose uniformity between multiple fractions. Results: In the first efficacy study, two lung patient target motion kernels were derived from 4D CT studies. From each kernels, a TME was formed by convolving the motion kernel with the single‐phase target volume. Dose was prescribed to the TME and delivered with open fields and three IMRT modalities — solid modulators, SMLC, and DMLC — for comparison. The 4D IMRT QA device effectively collected tumor‐ray data and allowed the analysis of degradation in dose uniformity due to a moving target within a static TME. Gating techniques were considered as well. Conclusion: The combined software and hardware solution for customized 4D IMRT QA proved to be an effective tool for assessing IMRT delivery under conditions of intrafractional motion. It was also an interesting tool for the assessment of delivery gating. Conflict of Interest: Research partially sponsored by Sun Nuclear Corporation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34047257036&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34047257036&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2241773

DO - 10.1118/1.2241773

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:34047257036

VL - 33

SP - 2247

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -