On dose distribution comparison

被引:52
作者
Jiang, SB [1 ]
Sharp, GC
Neicu, T
Berbeco, RI
Flampouri, S
Bortfeld, T
机构
[1] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Boston, MA 02114 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1088/0031-9155/51/4/001
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
In radiotherapy practice, one often needs to compare two dose distributions. Especially with the wide clinical implementation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy, software tools for quantitative dose (or fluence) distribution comparison are required for patient-specific quality assurance. Dose distribution comparison is not a trivial task since it has to be performed in both dose and spatial domains in order to be clinically relevant. Each of the existing comparison methods has its own strengths and weaknesses and there is room for improvement. In this work, we developed a general framework for comparing dose distributions. Using a new concept called maximum allowed dose difference (MADD), the comparison in both dose and spatial domains can be performed entirely in the dose domain. Formulae for calculating MADD Values for various comparison methods, such as composite analysis and gamma index, have been derived. For convenience in clinical practice, a new measure called normalized dose difference (NDD) has also been proposed, which is the dose difference at a point scaled by the ratio of MADD to the predetermined dose acceptance tolerance. Unlike the simple dose difference test, NDD works in both low and high dose gradient regions because it considers both dose and spatial acceptance tolerances through MADD. The new method has been applied to a test case and a clinical example. It was found that the new method combines the merits of the existing methods (accurate, simple, clinically intuitive and insensitive to dose grid size) and can easily be implemented into any dose/intensity comparison tool.
引用
收藏
页码:759 / 776
页数:18
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   A revision of the γ-evaluation concept for the comparison of dose distributions [J].
Bakai, A ;
Alber, M ;
Nüsslin, F .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2003, 48 (21) :3543-3553
[2]   Verification of IMRT fields by film dosimetry [J].
Bucciolini, M ;
Buonamici, FB ;
Casati, M .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2004, 31 (01) :161-168
[3]  
Chang J, 2003, J Appl Clin Med Phys, V4, P287, DOI 10.1120/1.1615071
[4]   Systematic verification of a three-dimensional electron beam dose calculation algorithm [J].
Cheng, A ;
Harms, WB ;
Gerber, RL ;
Wong, JW ;
Purdy, JA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1996, 23 (05) :685-693
[5]   Rapid radiographic film calibration for IMRT verification using automated MLC fields [J].
Childress, NL ;
Dong, L ;
Rosen, II .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (10) :2384-2390
[6]   A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation [J].
Depuydt, T ;
Van Esch, A ;
Huyskens, DP .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2002, 62 (03) :309-319
[7]   Comparative evaluation of Kodak EDR2 and XV2 films for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy [J].
Dogan, N ;
Leybovich, LB ;
Sethi, A .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2002, 47 (22) :4121-4130
[8]   Dosimetric properties of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for verification of dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy [J].
Greer, PB ;
Popescu, CC .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (07) :1618-1627
[9]   A software toes for the quantitative evaluation of 3D dose calculation algorithms [J].
Harms, WB ;
Low, DA ;
Wong, JW ;
Purdy, JA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (10) :1830-1836
[10]   Film dosimetry for intensity modulated radiation therapy: Dosimetric evaluation [J].
Ju, SG ;
Ahn, YC ;
Huh, SJ ;
Yeo, IJ .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (03) :351-355