Verification of the grid size and angular increment effects in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy using the dynamic conformal arc technique
The dosimetric effects of variable grid size and angular increment were systematically evaluated in the measured dose distributions of dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Dose variations with different grid sizes (2, 3, and 4 mm) and angular increments (2, 4, 6, and 10°) for spherical planning target volumes (PTVs) were verified in a thorax phantom by using EBT2 films. Although the doses for identical PTVs were predicted for the different grid sizes, the dose discrepancy was evaluated using one measured dose distribution with the gamma tool because the beam was delivered in the same set-up for DCAT. The dosimetric effect of the angular increment was verified by comparing the measured dose area histograms of organs at risk (OARs) at each angular increment. When the difference in the OAR doses is higher than the uncertainty of the film dosimetry, the error is regarded as the angular increment effect in discretely calculated doses. In the results, even when a 2-mm grid size was used with an elaborate dose calculation, 4-mm grid size led to a higher gamma pass ratio due to underdosage, a steep-dose descent gradient, and lower estimated PTV doses caused by the smoothing effect in the calculated dose distribution. An undulating dose distribution and a difference in the maximum contralateral lung dose of up to 14% were observed in dose calculation using a 10° angular increment. The DCAT can be effectively applied for an approximately spherical PTV in a relatively uniform geometry, which is less affected by inhomogeneous materials and differences in the beam path length.
KeywordsDynamic conformal arc therapy (DACT) Grid size Angular increment Film dosimetry
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- T. Malatesta, V. Landoni, S. delle Canne, A. Bufacchi, L. Marmiroli, O. Caspiani, A. Bonanni, F. Tortoreto, M. V. Leone, R. Capparella, R. Fragomeni and L. Begnozzi, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 4, 3 (2003).Google Scholar
- M. Ding, F. Newman, B. D. Kavanagh, K. Stuhr, T. K. Johnson and L. E. Gaspar, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 66, 4 (2006).Google Scholar
- M. A. Morales-Paliza, C. W. Coffey and G. X. Ding, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 12, 2 (2011).Google Scholar
- M. Koto, Y. Takai, Y. Ogawa, H. Matsushita, K. Takeda, C. Takahashi, K. R. Britton, K. Jingu, K. Takai, M. Mitsuya, K. Nemoto and S. Yamada, Radiat. Oncol. 85, 3 (2007).Google Scholar
- A. Niemierko and M. Goitein, Med. Phys. 16, 2 (1989).Google Scholar
- G. M. Videtic, A. K. Signh, J. Y. Chang, Q. T. Le, W. Parker, K. R. Oliver, S. E. Schild and H. Chen, RTOG 0915 (2012).Google Scholar
- International Specialty Products, http://online1.ispcorp.com/layouts/Gafchromic/index.html/EBT2whitepaper.pdf (2009).
- C. M. Bragg, K. Wingate and J. Conway, Radiat. Oncol. 86, 2 (2008).Google Scholar
- J. Y. Park, J. W. Lee, K. S. Choi, J. S. Lee, Y. H. Kim, S. Hong and T. S. Suh, Med. Phys. 38, 12 (2011).Google Scholar
- J. M. Moran, J. Radawski and B. A. Fraass, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 6, 2 (2005).Google Scholar
- N. Papanikolaou, J. J. Battista, A. L. Boyer, C. Kappas, E. Klein, T. R. Mackie, M. Sharpe and J. V. Dyk, AAPM REPORT No. 85, 1 (2004).Google Scholar