The goal of this research is to calculate the daily and cumulative dose distribution received by the radiotherapy patient while accounting for variable anatomy, by tracking the dose distribution delivered to tissue elements (voxels) that move within the patient. Non-linear image registration techniques (i.e., thin-plate splines) are used along with a conventional treatment planning system to combine the dose distributions computed for each 3D computed tomography (CT) study taken during treatment. For a clinical prostate case, we demonstrate that there are significant localized dose differences due to systematic voxel motion in a single fraction as well as in 15 cumulative fractions. The largest positive dose differences in rectum, bladder and seminal vesicles were 29%, 2% and 24%, respectively, after the first fraction of radiation treatment compared to the planned dose. After 15 cumulative fractions, the largest positive dose differences in rectum, bladder and seminal vesicles were 23%, 32% and 18%, respectively, compared to the planned dose. A sensitivity analysis of control point placement is also presented. This method provides an important understanding of actual delivered doses and has the potential to provide quantitative information to use as a guide for adaptive radiation treatments.

No abstract

No abstract

The goal of this work is to quantify the impact of image-guided conformal radiation therapy (CRT) on the dose distribution by correcting patient setup uncertainty and inter-fraction tumour motion. This was a retrospective analysis that used five randomly selected prostate cancer patients that underwent approximately 15 computed tomography (CT) scans during their radiation treatment course. The beam arrangement from the treatment plan was imported into each repeat CT study and the dose distribution was recalculated for the new beam setups. Various setup scenarios were then compared to assess the impact of image guidance on radiation treatment precision. These included (1) daily alignment to skin markers, thus representing a conventional beam setup without image guidance, (2) alignment to bony anatomy for correction of daily patient setup error, thus representing on-line portal image guidance, and (3) alignment to the 'CTV of the day' for correction of inter-fraction tumour motion, thus representing on-line CT or ultrasound image guidance. Treatment scenarios (1) and (3) were repeated with a reduced CTV to PTV margin, where the former represents a treatment using small margins without daily image guidance. Daily realignment of the treatment beams to the prostate showed an average increase in minimum tumour dose of 1.5 Gy, in all cases where tumour 'geographic miss' without image guidance was apparent. However, normal tissue sparing did not improve unless the PTV margin was reduced. Daily realignment to the tumour combined with reducing the margin size by a factor of 2 resulted in an average escalation in tumour dose of 9.0 Gy for all five static plans. However, the prescription dose could be escalated by 13.8 Gy when accounting for changes in anatomy by accumulating daily doses using nonlinear image registration techniques. These results provide quantitative information on the effectiveness of image-guided radiation treatment of prostate cancer and demonstrate that the dosimetric impact is patient dependent.