Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 19, Number 6, 2014

Clinical examples of 3D dose distribution reconstruction, based on the actual MLC leaves movement, for dynamic treatment techniques

Wojciech Osewski, Łukasz Dolla, Michał Radwan, Marta Szlag, Roman Rutkowski, Barbara Smolińska, Krzysztof Ślosarek

Summary:

Aim

To present practical examples of our new algorithm for reconstruction of 3D dose distribution, based on the actual MLC leaf movement.

Background

DynaLog and RTplan files were used by DDcon software to prepare a new RTplan file for dose distribution reconstruction.

Materials and methods

Four different clinically relevant scenarios were used to assess the feasibility of the proposed new approach: (1) Reconstruction of whole treatment sessions for prostate cancer; (2) Reconstruction of IMRT verification treatment plan; (3) Dose reconstruction in breast cancer; (4) Reconstruction of interrupted arc and complementary plan for an interrupted VMAT treatment session of prostate cancer. The applied reconstruction method was validated by comparing reconstructed and measured fluence maps. For all statistical analysis, the U Mann–Whitney test was used.

Results

In the first two and the fourth cases, there were no statistically significant differences between the planned and reconstructed dose distribution (p = 0.910, p = 0.975, p = 0.893, respectively). In the third case the differences were statistically significant (p = 0.015). Treatment plan had to be reconstructed.

Conclusion

Developed dose distribution reconstruction algorithm presents a very useful QA tool. It provides means for 3D dose distribution verification in patient volume and allows to evaluate the influence of actual MLC leaf motion on the dose distribution.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2014; 19(6) : 420-427


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2