Does intensity modulation increase target dose calculation errors of conventional algorithms for lung SBRT?

Dandan Zheng, Vivek Verma, Shuo Wang, Xiaoying Liang, Sumin Zhou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Conventional dose algorithms (Type A and Type B) for lung SBRT can display considerable target dose errors compared to Type-C algorithms. Intensity-modulated techniques (IMRT/VMAT) are increasingly being utilized for lung SBRT. Therefore, our study aimed to assess whether intensity modulation increased target dose calculation errors by conventional algorithms over conformal techniques. Methods: Twenty lung SBRT patients were parallely planned with both IMRT and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using a Type-A algorithm, and another 20 patients were parallely planned with IMRT, VMAT, and DCA using a Type-B algorithm. All 100 plans were recalculated with Type-C algorithms using identical beam and monitor unit settings, with the Type-A/Type-B algorithm dose errors defined using Type-C recalculation as the ground truth. Target dose errors for PTV and GTV were calculated for a variety of dosimetric end points. Using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.05 for statistical significance), target dose errors were compared between corresponding IMRT/VMAT and DCA plans for the two conventional algorithms. The levels of intensity modulation were also evaluated using the ratios of MUs in the IMRT/VMAT plans to those in the corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression was used to study the correlation between intensity modulation and relative dose error magnitudes. Results: Overall, larger errors were found for the Type-A algorithm than for the Type-B algorithm. However, the IMRT/VMAT plans were not found to have statistically larger dose errors from their corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression did not identify a significant correlation between the intensity modulation level and the relative dose error. Conclusion: Intensity modulation did not appear to increase target dose calculation errors for lung SBRT plans calculated with conventional algorithms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)154-159
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of applied clinical medical physics
Volume19
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2018

Fingerprint

lungs
Modulation
modulation
dosage
Lung
arcs
Linear regression
regression analysis
Linear Models
rank tests
ground truth
Nonparametric Statistics
monitors

Keywords

  • IMRT
  • Lung
  • Monte Carlo
  • SBRT
  • VMAT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiation
  • Instrumentation
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Does intensity modulation increase target dose calculation errors of conventional algorithms for lung SBRT? / Zheng, Dandan; Verma, Vivek; Wang, Shuo; Liang, Xiaoying; Zhou, Sumin.

In: Journal of applied clinical medical physics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 03.2018, p. 154-159.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c78768cd8c6144c1b249d76effdedff4,
title = "Does intensity modulation increase target dose calculation errors of conventional algorithms for lung SBRT?",
abstract = "Purpose: Conventional dose algorithms (Type A and Type B) for lung SBRT can display considerable target dose errors compared to Type-C algorithms. Intensity-modulated techniques (IMRT/VMAT) are increasingly being utilized for lung SBRT. Therefore, our study aimed to assess whether intensity modulation increased target dose calculation errors by conventional algorithms over conformal techniques. Methods: Twenty lung SBRT patients were parallely planned with both IMRT and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using a Type-A algorithm, and another 20 patients were parallely planned with IMRT, VMAT, and DCA using a Type-B algorithm. All 100 plans were recalculated with Type-C algorithms using identical beam and monitor unit settings, with the Type-A/Type-B algorithm dose errors defined using Type-C recalculation as the ground truth. Target dose errors for PTV and GTV were calculated for a variety of dosimetric end points. Using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.05 for statistical significance), target dose errors were compared between corresponding IMRT/VMAT and DCA plans for the two conventional algorithms. The levels of intensity modulation were also evaluated using the ratios of MUs in the IMRT/VMAT plans to those in the corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression was used to study the correlation between intensity modulation and relative dose error magnitudes. Results: Overall, larger errors were found for the Type-A algorithm than for the Type-B algorithm. However, the IMRT/VMAT plans were not found to have statistically larger dose errors from their corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression did not identify a significant correlation between the intensity modulation level and the relative dose error. Conclusion: Intensity modulation did not appear to increase target dose calculation errors for lung SBRT plans calculated with conventional algorithms.",
keywords = "IMRT, Lung, Monte Carlo, SBRT, VMAT",
author = "Dandan Zheng and Vivek Verma and Shuo Wang and Xiaoying Liang and Sumin Zhou",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1002/acm2.12266",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "154--159",
journal = "Journal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does intensity modulation increase target dose calculation errors of conventional algorithms for lung SBRT?

AU - Zheng, Dandan

AU - Verma, Vivek

AU - Wang, Shuo

AU - Liang, Xiaoying

AU - Zhou, Sumin

PY - 2018/3

Y1 - 2018/3

N2 - Purpose: Conventional dose algorithms (Type A and Type B) for lung SBRT can display considerable target dose errors compared to Type-C algorithms. Intensity-modulated techniques (IMRT/VMAT) are increasingly being utilized for lung SBRT. Therefore, our study aimed to assess whether intensity modulation increased target dose calculation errors by conventional algorithms over conformal techniques. Methods: Twenty lung SBRT patients were parallely planned with both IMRT and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using a Type-A algorithm, and another 20 patients were parallely planned with IMRT, VMAT, and DCA using a Type-B algorithm. All 100 plans were recalculated with Type-C algorithms using identical beam and monitor unit settings, with the Type-A/Type-B algorithm dose errors defined using Type-C recalculation as the ground truth. Target dose errors for PTV and GTV were calculated for a variety of dosimetric end points. Using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.05 for statistical significance), target dose errors were compared between corresponding IMRT/VMAT and DCA plans for the two conventional algorithms. The levels of intensity modulation were also evaluated using the ratios of MUs in the IMRT/VMAT plans to those in the corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression was used to study the correlation between intensity modulation and relative dose error magnitudes. Results: Overall, larger errors were found for the Type-A algorithm than for the Type-B algorithm. However, the IMRT/VMAT plans were not found to have statistically larger dose errors from their corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression did not identify a significant correlation between the intensity modulation level and the relative dose error. Conclusion: Intensity modulation did not appear to increase target dose calculation errors for lung SBRT plans calculated with conventional algorithms.

AB - Purpose: Conventional dose algorithms (Type A and Type B) for lung SBRT can display considerable target dose errors compared to Type-C algorithms. Intensity-modulated techniques (IMRT/VMAT) are increasingly being utilized for lung SBRT. Therefore, our study aimed to assess whether intensity modulation increased target dose calculation errors by conventional algorithms over conformal techniques. Methods: Twenty lung SBRT patients were parallely planned with both IMRT and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using a Type-A algorithm, and another 20 patients were parallely planned with IMRT, VMAT, and DCA using a Type-B algorithm. All 100 plans were recalculated with Type-C algorithms using identical beam and monitor unit settings, with the Type-A/Type-B algorithm dose errors defined using Type-C recalculation as the ground truth. Target dose errors for PTV and GTV were calculated for a variety of dosimetric end points. Using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.05 for statistical significance), target dose errors were compared between corresponding IMRT/VMAT and DCA plans for the two conventional algorithms. The levels of intensity modulation were also evaluated using the ratios of MUs in the IMRT/VMAT plans to those in the corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression was used to study the correlation between intensity modulation and relative dose error magnitudes. Results: Overall, larger errors were found for the Type-A algorithm than for the Type-B algorithm. However, the IMRT/VMAT plans were not found to have statistically larger dose errors from their corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression did not identify a significant correlation between the intensity modulation level and the relative dose error. Conclusion: Intensity modulation did not appear to increase target dose calculation errors for lung SBRT plans calculated with conventional algorithms.

KW - IMRT

KW - Lung

KW - Monte Carlo

KW - SBRT

KW - VMAT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041173206&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041173206&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acm2.12266

DO - 10.1002/acm2.12266

M3 - Article

C2 - 29388325

AN - SCOPUS:85041173206

VL - 19

SP - 154

EP - 159

JO - Journal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics

JF - Journal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

IS - 2

ER -