Abstract
Background and purpose
Accurate patient positioning before radiotherapy is often verified using advanced imaging techniques such as cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Even for dedicated imaging beam lines, the applied dose is not necessarily negligible with respect to the treatment dose and should be considered in the treatment plan.
Materials and methods
This study presents measurements of the beam properties of the Siemens kView (Siemens AG, Munich, Germany) image beam line (IBL) and the commissioning in the Philips Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS; Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands).
Results
The percent depth dose curve reaches its maximum at a depth of 10 mm, with a surface dose of 44 %. The IBL operates in flattening filter-free mode, showing the characteristic dose falloff from the central axis. Stability over several days to months is within less than 2 % dose deviation or 1 mm distance-to-agreement. Modelling of the IBL beam line was performed using the Pinnacle3 automatic modelling routine, with absolute dosimetric verification and film measurements of the fluence distribution.
Conclusion
After commissioning of the IBL beam model, the dose from the imaging IBL CBCT can be calculated. Even if the absolute dose deposited is small, repeated imaging doses may sum up to significant amounts and can shift the position of the dose maximum by several centimetres.
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund und Ziel
Zur präzisen Lagerungskontrolle der Patienten werden in der Strahlentherapie vor der Bestrahlung fortgeschrittene Bildgebungsmethoden wie Cone-Beam-CT (CBCT) verwendet. Die dabei abgestrahlte Dosis ist nicht unbedingt vernachlässigbar und sollte deshalb im Behandlungsplan eingerechnet werden.
Material und Methode
Es werden Messungen der Strahleigenschaften des Siemens-kView-IBL („image beam line“; Siemens AG, München, Deutschland) und der Kommissionierung im Pinnacle3-Planungssystem von Philips (TPS, „treatment planning system“; Philips, Amsterdam, Niederlande) vorgestellt.
Ergebnisse
Die Tiefendosiskurve erreicht in 10 mm Tiefe ihr Maximum; die prozentuale Oberflächendosis beträgt 44 %. Die IBL hat die charakteristischen konischen Profile ohne Glättungsfilter („flattening filter-free beams“). Die Stabilität über Zeiträume von Tagen bis Monaten beträgt weniger als 2 % der Dosiswerte oder 1 mm Verschiebung bis zur Übereinstimmung. Die Modellierung mit dem automatischen Modellierungsalgorithmus in Pinnacle3 gelingt mit ausreichender Präzision und ist dosimetrisch verifizierbar.
Zusammenfassung
Nach erfolgreicher Kommissionierung des IBL-Beam-Modells kann die Bildgebungsdosis in den Behandlungsplan eingerechnet werden. Der Absolutbetrag der Dosis eines CBCT ist klein. Bei häufiger Bildgebung kann die akkumulierte Dosis signifikant werden und zu einer deutlichen Verschiebung des Dosismaximums führen.
References
Alaei P, Ding G, Guan H (2010) Inclusion of the dose from kilovoltage cone beam CT in therapy treatment plans. Med Phys 37(1):244–248
Amer A, Marchant T, Sykes J et al (2007) Imaging doses from the elekta synergy X-ray cone beam CT system. BJR 80:476–482
Beltran C, Lukose R, Gangadharan B et al (2009) Image quality & dosimetric property of an investigational imaging beam line MV-CBCT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 10(3):37–48
Boda-Heggemann J, Lohr F, Wenz F et al (2011) kV Cone-Beam CT-Based IGRT. Strahlenther Onkol 187(5):284–291
Breitbach EK, Maltz JS, Gangadharan B et al (2011) Image quality improvement in megavoltage cone-beam CT using an imaging beam line and a sintered pixelated array system. Med Phys 38(11):5969–5979
Connell T, Robar JL (2010) Low-Z target optimization for spatial resolution improvement in megavoltage imaging. Med Phys 37(1):124–131
Ding GX, Coffey CW (2009) Radiation Dose from kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography in and image-guided radiotherapy procedure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73(2):610–617
Dzierma Y, Licht N, Nuesken F, Ruebe C (2012) Beam properties and stability of a flattening-filter free 7 MV beam—an overview. Med Phys 39(5):2595–2602
Faddegon BA, Wu V, Pouliot J et al (2008) Low dose megavoltage cone beam computed tomography with an unflattened 4 MV beam from a carbon target. Med Phys 35(12):5777–5786
Faddegon BA, Aubin M, Bani-Hashemi A et al (2010) Comparison of patient megavoltage cone beam CT images acquired with an unflattened beam from a carbon target and a flattened treatment beam. Med Phys 37(4):1737–1741
Flynn RT, Hartmann J, Bani-Hashemi A et al (2009) Dosimetric characterization and application of an imaging beam line with a carbon electron target for megavoltage cone beam computed tomography. Med Phys 36(6):2181–2192
Gayou O, Parda DS, Johnson M, Miften M (2007) Patient dose and image quality from mega-voltage cone beam computed tomography imaging. Med Phys 34(2):499–506
Isambert A, Ferreira IH, Bossi A et al (2009) Dose délivrée au patient lors de l’acquisition d’images par tomographie conique de haute énergie. Cancer/Radiothérapie 13:358–364 (article in French)
Islam MK, Purdie TG, Norrlinger BD et al (2006) Patient dose from kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography imaging in radiation therapy. Med Phys 33(6):1573–1782
Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH, Wong JW, Martinez AA (2002) Flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy. IJROBP 53(5):1337–1349
Jaffray DA, Drake DG, Moreau M et al (1999) A radiographic and tomographic imaging system integrated into a medical linear accelerator for localization of the bone and soft-tissue targets. IJROBP 45(3):773–789
Miften M, Gayou O, Reiz B et al (2007) IMRT planning and delivery incorporating daily dose from mega-voltage cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Med Phys 34(10):3760–3767
Mohan R, Chui C (1985) Energy and angular distributions of photons from medical linear accelerators. Med Phys 12(5):592–597
Morin O, Chen J, Aubin M et al (2007) Dose calculation using megavoltage cone-beam CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67(4):1201–1210
Morin O, Gillis A, Descovich M et al (2007) Patient dose considerations for routine megavoltage cone-beam CT imaging. Med Phys 34(5):1819–1827
Ostapiak OZ, O’Brien PF, Faddegon BA (1998) Megavoltage imaging with low Z targets: implementation and characterization of an investigational system. Med Phys 25(10):1910–1918
Robar JL, Connell T, Huang W, Kelly RG (2009) Megavoltage planar and cone-beam imaging with low-Z targets: dependence of image quality improvement on beam energy and patient separation. Med Phys 36(9):3955–3963
Roberts DA, Hansen VN, Niven AC et al (2008) A low Z linac and flat panel imager: comparison with the conventional imaging approach. Phys Med Biol 53:6305–6319
Roberts DA, Hansen VN, Thompson MG et al (2011) Comparative study of a low-Z cone-beamk computed tomography system. Phys Med Biol 56:4453–4464
Spezi E, Downes P, Jarvis R et al (2011) Patient-specific three-dimensional concomitant dose from cone beam computed tomography exposure in image-guided radiotherapy. IJROBP 83(1):419–426
Steil V, Röhner F, Schneider F et al (2012) Aktuelle Anforderungen an das Bildmanagement in der Strahlentherapie. Strahlenther Onkol 188(5):499–506
Zabel-du Bois A, Nill S, Ulrich S et al (2012) Dosimetric integration of daily mega-voltage cone-beam CT for image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 188(2):120–126
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Georg Blass for his assistance with the TLD measurements, to Stephanie Kremp for her help in printing out the Pinnacle3 results and to Achim Elzer for providing technical details on the IBL and flat panel. We thank the associate editor and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dzierma, Y., Nuesken, F., Licht, N. et al. Dosimetric properties and commissioning of cone-beam CT image beam line with a carbon target. Strahlenther Onkol 189, 566–572 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0330-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0330-5