A dosimetric comparison of real-time adaptive and non-adaptive radiotherapy : A multi-institutional study encompassing robotic, gimbaled, multileaf collimator and couch tracking
(2016) In Radiotherapy and Oncology 119(1). p.159-165- Abstract
Purpose A study of real-time adaptive radiotherapy systems was performed to test the hypothesis that, across delivery systems and institutions, the dosimetric accuracy is improved with adaptive treatments over non-adaptive radiotherapy in the presence of patient-measured tumor motion. Methods and materials Ten institutions with robotic(2), gimbaled(2), MLC(4) or couch tracking(2) used common materials including CT and structure sets, motion traces and planning protocols to create a lung and a prostate plan. For each motion trace, the plan was delivered twice to a moving dosimeter; with and without real-time adaptation. Each measurement was compared to a static measurement and the percentage of failed points for γ-tests recorded. Results... (More)
Purpose A study of real-time adaptive radiotherapy systems was performed to test the hypothesis that, across delivery systems and institutions, the dosimetric accuracy is improved with adaptive treatments over non-adaptive radiotherapy in the presence of patient-measured tumor motion. Methods and materials Ten institutions with robotic(2), gimbaled(2), MLC(4) or couch tracking(2) used common materials including CT and structure sets, motion traces and planning protocols to create a lung and a prostate plan. For each motion trace, the plan was delivered twice to a moving dosimeter; with and without real-time adaptation. Each measurement was compared to a static measurement and the percentage of failed points for γ-tests recorded. Results For all lung traces all measurement sets show improved dose accuracy with a mean 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate of 1.6% with adaptation and 15.2% without adaptation (p < 0.001). For all prostate the mean 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate was 1.4% with adaptation and 17.3% without adaptation (p < 0.001). The difference between the four systems was small with an average 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate of <3% for all systems with adaptation for lung and prostate. Conclusions The investigated systems all accounted for realistic tumor motion accurately and performed to a similar high standard, with real-time adaptation significantly outperforming non-adaptive delivery methods.
(Less)
- author
- Colvill, Emma
; Booth, Jeremy
; Nill, Simeon
; Fast, Martin
; Bedford, James
; Oelfke, Uwe
; Nakamura, Mitsuhiro
; Poulsen, Per
; Worm, Esben
; Hansen, Rune
; Ravkilde, Thomas
; Scherman Rydhög, Jonas
; Pommer, Tobias
; Munck Af Rosenschold, Per
LU
; Lang, Stephanie
; Guckenberger, Matthias
; Groh, Christian
; Herrmann, Christian
; Verellen, Dirk
; Poels, Kenneth
; Wang, Lei
; Hadsell, Michael
; Sothmann, Thilo
; Blanck, Oliver
and Keall, Paul
(Less) - organization
- publishing date
- 2016-04-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Couch tracking, Gimbaled tracking, MLC tracking, Organ motion, Robotic tracking
- in
- Radiotherapy and Oncology
- volume
- 119
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 7 pages
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:27016171
- scopus:84962197510
- ISSN
- 0167-8140
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.006
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- edb5a226-fdc3-4469-9f36-3d0ff04f552e
- date added to LUP
- 2020-07-28 09:07:10
- date last changed
- 2024-07-10 20:46:48
@article{edb5a226-fdc3-4469-9f36-3d0ff04f552e,
abstract = {{<p>Purpose A study of real-time adaptive radiotherapy systems was performed to test the hypothesis that, across delivery systems and institutions, the dosimetric accuracy is improved with adaptive treatments over non-adaptive radiotherapy in the presence of patient-measured tumor motion. Methods and materials Ten institutions with robotic(2), gimbaled(2), MLC(4) or couch tracking(2) used common materials including CT and structure sets, motion traces and planning protocols to create a lung and a prostate plan. For each motion trace, the plan was delivered twice to a moving dosimeter; with and without real-time adaptation. Each measurement was compared to a static measurement and the percentage of failed points for γ-tests recorded. Results For all lung traces all measurement sets show improved dose accuracy with a mean 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate of 1.6% with adaptation and 15.2% without adaptation (p < 0.001). For all prostate the mean 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate was 1.4% with adaptation and 17.3% without adaptation (p < 0.001). The difference between the four systems was small with an average 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate of <3% for all systems with adaptation for lung and prostate. Conclusions The investigated systems all accounted for realistic tumor motion accurately and performed to a similar high standard, with real-time adaptation significantly outperforming non-adaptive delivery methods.</p>}},
author = {{Colvill, Emma and Booth, Jeremy and Nill, Simeon and Fast, Martin and Bedford, James and Oelfke, Uwe and Nakamura, Mitsuhiro and Poulsen, Per and Worm, Esben and Hansen, Rune and Ravkilde, Thomas and Scherman Rydhög, Jonas and Pommer, Tobias and Munck Af Rosenschold, Per and Lang, Stephanie and Guckenberger, Matthias and Groh, Christian and Herrmann, Christian and Verellen, Dirk and Poels, Kenneth and Wang, Lei and Hadsell, Michael and Sothmann, Thilo and Blanck, Oliver and Keall, Paul}},
issn = {{0167-8140}},
keywords = {{Couch tracking; Gimbaled tracking; MLC tracking; Organ motion; Robotic tracking}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{04}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{159--165}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Radiotherapy and Oncology}},
title = {{A dosimetric comparison of real-time adaptive and non-adaptive radiotherapy : A multi-institutional study encompassing robotic, gimbaled, multileaf collimator and couch tracking}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.006}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.006}},
volume = {{119}},
year = {{2016}},
}