Introduction and Clinical Overview of the DVH Risk Map.

Radiation oncologists need reliable estimates of risk for various fractionation schemes for all critical anatomical structures throughout the body, in a clinically convenient format. Reliable estimation theory can become fairly complex, however, and estimates of risk continue to evolve as the literature matures. To navigate through this efficiently, a dose-volume histogram (DVH) Risk Map was created, which provides a comparison of radiation tolerance limits as a function of dose, fractionation, volume, and risk level. The graphical portion of the DVH Risk Map helps clinicians to easily visualize the trends, whereas the tabular portion provides quantitative precision for clinical implementation. The DVH Risk Map for rib tolerance from stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is used as an example in this overview; the 5% and 50% risk levels for 1-5 fractions for 5 different volumes are given. Other articles throughout this issue of Seminars in Radiation Oncology present analysis of new clinical datasets including the DVH Risk Maps for other anatomical structures throughout the body.

Dose reconstruction for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using a non-iterative method and portal dose image.

A straightforward and accurate method was developed to verify the delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to reconstruct the dose in a patient. The method is based on a computational algorithm that linearly describes the physical relationship between beamlets and dose-scoring voxels in a patient and the dose image from an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The relationship is expressed in the form of dose response functions (responses) that are quantified using Monte Carlo (MC) particle transport techniques. From the dose information measured by the EPID the received patient dose is reconstructed by inversely solving the algorithm. The unique and novel non-iterative feature of this algorithm sets it apart from many existing dose reconstruction methods in the literature. This study presents the algorithm in detail and validates it experimentally for open and IMRT fields. Responses were first calculated for each beamlet of the selected fields by MC simulation. In-phantom and exit film dosimetry were performed on a flat phantom. Using the calculated responses and the algorithm, the exit film dose was used to inversely reconstruct the in-phantom dose, which was then compared with the measured in-phantom dose. The dose comparison in the phantom for all irradiated fields showed a pass rate of higher than 90% dose points given the criteria of dose difference of 3% and distance to agreement of 3 mm.

Impact of transrectal ultrasound- and computed tomography-based seed localization on postimplant dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To study the impact of seed localization, as performed by different observers using linked (125)I seeds, on postimplant dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy and, to compare transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-based with CT-based approach for the dosimetric outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen permanent prostate implants were conducted using linked (125)I seeds. Postimplant TRUS and CT images were acquired and prostate glands were, after implantation, delineated on all images by a single oncologist, who had performed all 19 seeding procedures. Six observers independently localized the seeds on both TRUS and CT images, from which the principle dosimetric parameters V(100) (volume of prostate that received the prescribed dose), V(150) (volume of prostate that received 150% of the prescribed dose), and D(90) (minimal dose delivered to 90% of the prostate) were directly calculated for each patient. A single-factor analysis of variance was first applied to determine interobserver variability in seed localization. A nonparametric comparison of the approach using TRUS and CT was then carried out by the Wilcoxon paired-sample test. RESULTS: Analysis from the analysis of variance for TRUS showed that the null hypothesis for equal means, could not be rejected for all six observers based on a significance level alpha=0.05. TRUS-based and CT-based approaches were then cross compared by the Wilcoxon paired-sample test, which suggested that the null hypothesis was insignificant for V(100) and D(90), but was significant for V(150). CONCLUSIONS: Both TRUS- and CT-imaging modalities provided indistinguishable postimplant dosimetry results as far as V(100) and D(90) were concerned. There was comparable observer independence between TRUS- and CT-based seed localization for linked-seed implant procedures. With other advantages that TRUS-imaging modality had over CT in the evaluation of postimplant dosimetry, TRUS would be a preferred choice in conjunction with linked seeds for intraoperative procedures in prostate brachytherapy.