Journal of Medical Physics
 Home | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscription | Login  The official journal of AMPI, IOMP and AFOMP      
 Users online: 1343  Home  EMail this page Print this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size 
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 43  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 28-40

Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluation of patient setup accuracy in head-and-neck radiotherapy using daily computed tomography-on-rails-based corrections

1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
4 Department of Medical Radiological Technologists, Technological Education Institute of Athens, Greece
5 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Panayiotis Mavroidis
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_113_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: This study evaluates treatment plans aiming at determining the expected impact of daily patient setup corrections on the delivered dose distribution and plan parameters in head-and-neck radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: In this study, 10 head-and-neck cancer patients are evaluated. For the evaluation of daily changes of the patient internal anatomy, image-guided radiation therapy based on computed tomography (CT)-on-rails was used. The daily-acquired CT-on-rails images were deformedly registered to the CT scan that was used during treatment planning. Two approaches were used during data analysis (“cascade” and “one-to-all”). The dosimetric and radiobiological differences of the dose distributions with and without patient setup correction were calculated. The evaluation is performed using dose–volume histograms; the biologically effective uniform dose ([INSIDE:1]) and the complication-free tumor control probability (P+) were also calculated. The dose–response curves of each target and organ at risk (OAR), as well as the corresponding P+ curves, were calculated. Results: The average difference for the “one-to-all” case is 0.6 ± 1.8 Gy and for the “cascade” case is 0.5 ± 1.8 Gy. The value of P+ was lowest for the cascade case (in 80% of the patients). Discussion: Overall, the lowest PIis observed in the one-to-all cases. Dosimetrically, CT-on-rails data are not worse or better than the planned data. Conclusions: The differences between the evaluated “one-to-all” and “cascade” dose distributions were small. Although the differences of those doses against the “planned” dose distributions were small for the majority of the patients, they were large for given patients at risk and OAR.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded169    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal