Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Comparison of Two Commercially Available Programs for the Evaluation of Delivered Daily Dose Using Cone Beam CT (CBCT)

no image available
R Tuohy

R Tuohy*, C Bosse , P Mavroidis , Z Shi , R Crownover , N Papanikolaou , S Stathakis , University of Texas Health Science Center, UTHSCSA, San Antonio, TX


SU-E-T-86 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: In this study, two commercially available programs were compared for the evaluation of delivered daily dose using cone beam CT (CBCT).

Methods: Thirty (n=30) patients previously treated in our clinic (10 prostate, 10 SBRT lung and 10 abdomen) were used in this study. The patients’ plans were optimized and calculated using the Pinnacle treatment planning system. The daily CBCT scans were imported into Velocity and RayStation along with the corresponding planning CTs, structure sets and 3D dose distributions for each patient. The organs at risk (OAR) were contoured on each CBCT by the prescribing physician and were included in the evaluation of the daily delivered dose. Each CBCT was registered to the planning CT, once with rigid registration and then again, separately, with deformable registration. After registering each CBCT, the dose distribution from the planning CT was overlaid and the dose volume histograms (DVH) for the OAR and the planning target volumes (PTV) were calculated.

Results: For prostate patients, we observed daily volume changes for the OARs. The DVH analysis for those patients showed variation in the sparing of the OARs while PTV coverage remained virtually unchanged using both Velocity and RayStation systems. Similar results were observed for abdominal patients. In contrast, for SBRT lung patients, the DVH for the OARs and target were comparable to those from the initial treatment plan. Differences in organ volume and organ doses were also observed when comparing the daily fractions using deformable and rigid registrations.

Conclusion: By using daily CBCT dose reconstruction, we proved PTV coverage for prostate and abdominal targets is adequate. However, there is significant dosimetric change for the OARs. For lung SBRT patients, the delivered daily dose for both PTV and OAR is comparable to the planned dose with no significant differences.

Contact Email: