Gordon J J, Crimaldi A J, Hagan M, Moore J, Siebers J V
Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO. Box 980058, Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA.
Med Phys. 2007 Jan;34(1):202-14. doi: 10.1118/1.2400842.
This work evaluates: (i) the size of random and systematic setup errors that can be absorbed by 5 mm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins in prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT); (ii) agreement between simulation results and published margin recipes; and (iii) whether shifting contours with respect to a static dose distribution accurately predicts dose coverage due to setup errors. In 27 IMRT treatment plans created with 5 mm CTV-to-PTV margins, random setup errors with standard deviations (SDs) of 1.5, 3, 5 and 10 mm were simulated by fluence convolution. Systematic errors with identical SDs were simulated using two methods: (a) shifting the isocenter and recomputing dose (isocenter shift), and (b) shifting patient contours with respect to the static dose distribution (contour shift). Maximum tolerated setup errors were evaluated such that 90% of plans had target coverage equal to the planned PTV coverage. For coverage criteria consistent with published margin formulas, plans with 5 mm margins were found to absorb combined random and systematic SDs = 3 mm. Published recipes require margins of 8-10 mm for 3 mm SDs. For the prostate IMRT cases presented here a 5 mm margin would suffice, indicating that published recipes may be pessimistic. We found significant errors in individual plan doses given by the contour shift method. However, dose population plots (DPPs) given by the contour shift method agreed with the isocenter shift method for all structures except the nodal CTV and small bowel. For the nodal CTV, contour shift DPP differences were due to the structure moving outside the patient. Small bowel DPP errors were an artifact of large relative differences at low doses. Estimating individual plan doses by shifting contours with respect to a static dose distribution is not recommended. However, approximating DPPs is acceptable, provided care is taken with structures such as the nodal CTV which lie close to the surface.
(i) 在前列腺调强放射治疗(IMRT)中,5毫米临床靶区(CTV)到计划靶区(PTV)边界可吸收的随机和系统设置误差的大小;(ii) 模拟结果与已发表的边界处方之间的一致性;以及(iii) 相对于静态剂量分布移动轮廓是否能准确预测因设置误差导致的剂量覆盖情况。在27个采用5毫米CTV到PTV边界创建的IMRT治疗计划中,通过通量卷积模拟了标准差(SD)分别为1.5、3、5和10毫米的随机设置误差。使用两种方法模拟了具有相同标准差的系统误差:(a) 移动等中心并重新计算剂量(等中心移位),以及(b) 相对于静态剂量分布移动患者轮廓(轮廓移位)。评估了最大可耐受设置误差,以使90%的计划的靶区覆盖等于计划的PTV覆盖。对于与已发表的边界公式一致的覆盖标准,发现有5毫米边界的计划可吸收组合的随机和系统标准差 = 3毫米。已发表的处方要求对于3毫米标准差的边界为8 - 10毫米。对于此处呈现的前列腺IMRT病例,5毫米的边界就足够了,这表明已发表的处方可能过于保守。我们发现轮廓移位法给出的单个计划剂量存在显著误差。然而,轮廓移位法给出的剂量总体图(DPP)与等中心移位法在除淋巴结CTV和小肠外的所有结构上都一致。对于淋巴结CTV,轮廓移位DPP差异是由于该结构移出了患者体外。小肠DPP误差是低剂量时大的相对差异造成的假象。不建议通过相对于静态剂量分布移动轮廓来估计单个计划剂量。然而,近似DPP是可以接受的,前提是要注意靠近体表的结构,如淋巴结CTV。