Estimation of the secondary cancer risk induced by diagnostic imaging radiation during proton therapy

We have estimated the secondary cancer risk (SCR) introduced by image-guided procedures during proton therapy. The physical dose from imaging radiation and the corresponding organ equivalent dose were calculated for the case of a lumbar spine patient. The maximum physical dose delivered to the patient during the imaging procedure was estimated to be ~0.35% of the prescribed dose of 46 Gy. However, this small imaging dose substantially raised the radiation-induced SCR by ~8%. In addition, the clinical benefit (improved accuracy during the procedure) and costs (extra SCR) associated with image-guided procedures were quantitatively modelled by systematically investigating the changes in SCR as a function of the prescribed dose, treatment target volume and imaging field size. The results showed that the SCR varied sensitively with the volume receiving the imaging and the therapeutic radiation, whereas the SCR depended to a lesser extent on the magnitude of the applied therapeutic radiation. These results showed that the additional SCR introduced by imaging radiation could be efficiently reduced by minimizing the imaging field size during image-guided procedures.

The management of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 75

Radiographic image guidance has emerged as the new paradigm for patient positioning, target localization, and external beam alignment in radiotherapy. Although widely varied in modality and method, all radiographic guidance techniques have one thing in common--they can give a significant radiation dose to the patient. As with all medical uses of ionizing radiation, the general view is that this exposure should be carefully managed. The philosophy for dose management adopted by the diagnostic imaging community is summarized by the acronym ALARA, i.e., as low as reasonably achievable. But unlike the general situation with diagnostic imaging and image-guided surgery, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) adds the imaging dose to an already high level of therapeutic radiation. There is furthermore an interplay between increased imaging and improved therapeutic dose conformity that suggests the possibility of optimizing rather than simply minimizing the imaging dose. For this reason, the management of imaging dose during radiotherapy is a different problem than its management during routine diagnostic or image-guided surgical procedures. The imaging dose received as part of a radiotherapy treatment has long been regarded as negligible and thus has been quantified in a fairly loose manner. On the other hand, radiation oncologists examine the therapy dose distribution in minute detail. The introduction of more intensive imaging procedures for IGRT now obligates the clinician to evaluate therapeutic and imaging doses in a more balanced manner. This task group is charged with addressing the issue of radiation dose delivered via image guidance techniques during radiotherapy. The group has developed this charge into three objectives: (1) Compile an overview of image-guidance techniques and their associated radiation dose levels, to provide the clinician using a particular set of image guidance techniques with enough data to estimate the total diagnostic dose for a specific treatment scenario, (2) identify ways to reduce the total imaging dose without sacrificing essential imaging information, and (3) recommend optimization strategies to trade off imaging dose with improvements in therapeutic dose delivery. The end goal is to enable the design of image guidance regimens that are as effective and efficient as possible.

Evaluation of the precision of portal-image-guided head-and-neck localization: An intra- and interobserver study

There is increasing evidence that, for some patients, image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer patients may maintain target dose coverage and critical organ (e.g., parotids) dose closer to the planned doses than setup using lasers alone. We investigated inter- and intraobserver uncertainties in patient setup in head-and-neck cancer patients. Twenty-two sets of orthogonal digital portal images (from five patients) were selected from images used for daily localization of head-and-neck patients treated with IMRT. To evaluate interobserver variations, five radiation therapists compared the portal images with the plan digitally reconstructed radiographs and reported shifts for the isocenter (approximately C2) and for a supraclavicular reference point. One therapist repeated the procedure a month later to evaluate intraobserver variations. The procedure was then repeated with teams of two therapists. The frequencies for which agreement between the shift reported by the observer and the daily mean shift (average of all observers for a given image set) were less than 1.5 and 2.5 mm were calculated. Standard errors of measurement for the intra- and interobserver uncertainty (SEMintra and SEMinter) for the individual and teams were calculated. The data showed that there was very little difference between individual therapists and teams. At isocenter, 80%-90% of all reported shifts agreed with the daily average within 1.5 mm, showing consistency in the ways both individuals and teams interpret the images (SEMinter approximately 1 mm). This dropped to 65% for the supraclavicular point (SEMinter approximately 1.5 mm). Uncertainties increased for larger setup errors. In conclusion, image-guided patient positioning allows head-and-neck patients to be controlled within 3-4 mm. This is similar to the setup uncertainties found for most head-and-neck patients, but may provide some improvement for the subset of patients with larger setup uncertainties.