IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,201,854
Granted Patent B2
US 12,201,854 · App. 17/519,872 · Granted Jan 21, 2025

Portal dosimetry systems, devices, and methods

Inventors: Janne Nord (Espoo, FI); Lasse Heikki Toimela (Espoo, FI)
Assignee: SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS INTERNATIONAL AG
A61N5/1071A61N5/103A61N2005/1054
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,201,854
App. No.
17/519,872
Granted
Jan 21, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Systems, devices, and methods for dosimetric verification of radiation therapy treatments by selective evaluation of measurement points. Systems, methods, and computer program-products for providing dosimetric verification of radiation therapy treatments by evaluating measurement points using different evaluation criteria.

Claims (50)

1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium upon which is embodied a sequence of programmed instructions for evaluating radiation dose delivery to an object, which when executed by a computer processing system causes the computer processing system to:

generate an image corresponding to radiation dose distributed in the object, the image including a plurality of points associated with different structures within the object; and

determine radiation dose acceptability by evaluating the points using corresponding acceptability criterias,

wherein the acceptability criterias are dependent on the structures associated with the compared points.

2. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 , wherein the evaluating includes:

comparing the points in the generated image with corresponding points in a predicted image; and

determining if the differences between the compared points pass their respective acceptability criterias.

3. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2 , wherein points associated with the same structure are evaluated using same acceptability criteria, and points associated with different structures are evaluated using different acceptability criterias.

4. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 3 , wherein the different structures include different anatomical structures including a target, an organ at risk located adjacent the target, and normal tissue.

5. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 4 , wherein the acceptability criteria used for evaluating points associated with the organ at risk is more stringent than the acceptability criterias used for evaluating points associated with the target and the normal tissue.

6. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 5 , wherein the acceptability criterias include an acceptable dose difference value, an acceptable spatial difference value, and an acceptable absolute dose value, and wherein the acceptable dose difference value is between 2%-4%, the acceptable spatial difference value is between 2 mm-4 mm, and the acceptable absolute dose value is between a predetermined maximum and a predetermined minimum absolute dose value.

7. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 , wherein the radiation dose delivery is determined to be acceptable if a predetermined number of points in the generated image pass their respective acceptability criteria.

8. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium upon which is embodied a sequence of programmed instructions for evaluating radiation dose delivery to an object, which when executed by a computer processing system causes the computer processing system to:

generate an image corresponding to radiation distributed within the object, the image including at least one first point associated with a first structure within the object, and at least one second point associated with a second structure within the object;

compare the generated image with a corresponding predicted image, the predicted image corresponding to a predicted distribution of radiation within the object, the comparing comprising comparing the first points in the generated image with corresponding first points in the predicted image and comparing the second points in the generated image with corresponding second points in the predicted image, the comparing of the first and second points in the generated image with the corresponding first and second points in the predicted image uses the same comparison parameter; and

evaluate the compared first points using a first criteria and the compared second points using a second, different criteria.

9. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8 , wherein the comparison parameter includes either radiation dose and physical location of a point, or absolute radiation dose, and wherein the first criteria is a first gamma criteria, and the second criteria is a second gamma criteria, or the first criteria is a maximum absolute dose value and the second criteria is a minimum absolute dose value.

10. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8 , wherein the first and second structures are anatomical structures including one of a target, an organ at risk, and normal tissue, the criteria used for evaluating points associated with the organ at risk being more stringent than the criteria used for evaluating points associated with the target and normal tissue.

11. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium upon which is embodied a sequence of programmed instructions for evaluating radiation dose delivery to a target, which when executed by a computer processing system causes the computer processing system to:

generate a radiation dose distribution image based on radiation delivered to the target according to a treatment plan, the generated radiation dose distribution image including at least a first point and a second point;

compare the generated radiation dose distribution image with a corresponding predicted radiation dose distribution image, the comparing including comparing points in the generated radiation dose distribution image with corresponding points in the predicted radiation dose distribution image;

evaluate the compared points using different evaluation criterias; and

determine whether dose delivery is acceptable based on a result of the evaluation,

wherein the evaluating includes evaluating the first point using a first gamma criteria including dose and spatial differences and evaluating the second point using a second gamma criteria including dose and spatial differences, the second gamma criteria being different than the first gamma criteria, or evaluating the first point against a maximum absolute dose value and the second point against a minimum absolute dose value.

12. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11 , wherein the radiation dose delivery is determined to be acceptable if a predetermined number of points in the generated radiation dose distribution image pass their respective gamma criteria, the predetermined number of points being at least 90% of the total amount of evaluated points in the generated radiation dose distribution image.

13. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11 , wherein the first point is associated with the target and the second point is associated with an organ at risk, the second gamma criteria being more stringent than the first gamma criteria.

14. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11 , wherein each point in the generated radiation dose distribution image is associated with a respective gamma criteria, wherein each gamma criteria includes a first parameter and a second parameter, wherein the first parameter is associated with an acceptable dose difference, and the second parameter is associated with an acceptable spatial difference, and wherein the first parameter includes a range of between 2% and 4% and the second parameter includes a range of between 2 mm and 4 mm.

15. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11 , wherein the gamma criteria used for a point is dependent on an anatomical structure that is projected onto the point.

16. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 , wherein if an anatomical structure is projected onto a plurality of points in the generated radiation dose distribution image, the plurality of points are evaluated using a first gamma criteria, and wherein if two anatomical structures are projected onto a single point in the generated dose distribution image, the point is evaluated using a gamma criteria which is the more stringent one between a first gamma criteria associated with a first anatomical structure and a second gamma criteria associated with a second anatomical structure.

17. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16 , wherein the anatomical structure includes organs, the target, and normal tissues, the organs including organs located adjacent the target.

18. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 , wherein the organ includes a critical organ, and the critical organ includes at least a portion of one of the following: spine, spinal cord, heart, brain, bladder, rectum, lung, heart, liver, stomach, kidney, pancreas, and eye.

19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium upon which is embodied a sequence of programmed instructions for evaluating radiation dose delivery to a target, which when executed by a computer processing system causes the computer processing system to:

generate a radiation dose distribution image based on radiation delivered according to a treatment plan;

project anatomical structures onto a measurement plane, the anatomical structures being associated with different gamma criterias;

associate points in the generated distribution image with gamma criterias based on the projections;

compare points in the generated radiation dose distribution image with corresponding points in the predicted radiation dose distribution image;

evaluate the compared points using gamma criterias based on the associating; and

determine whether dose delivery is acceptable based on a result of the evaluation.

20. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 , wherein the evaluating includes evaluating dose and spatial differences between the generated and predicted points, the evaluating includes evaluating using a gamma evaluation method, and the radiation dose delivery is determined to be acceptable if a predetermined number of points in the generated radiation dose distribution image pass their respective gamma criterias.

21. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium upon which is embodied a sequence of programmed instructions for selectively evaluating radiation dose delivery to a target, which when executed by a computer processing system causes the computer processing system to:

generate a radiation dose distribution image based on radiation delivered to the target according to a treatment plan;

compare the generated radiation dose distribution image with a corresponding predicted radiation dose distribution image, the comparing including comparing selected points in the generated radiation dose distribution image with corresponding points in the predicted radiation dose distribution image;

evaluate the compared selected points; and

determining whether dose delivery is acceptable based on a result of the evaluation,

wherein the selected points include points selected based on patient surface information.

22. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21 , wherein the selected points exclude points that are irradiated with beams that do not intersect the surface of the patient.

23. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21 , wherein the selected points exclude points that are irradiated with beams that intersect the patient at a predetermined distance below the surface of the patient.

24. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21 , wherein the evaluating includes evaluating using a gamma evaluation method, the comparing includes comparing dose and spatial discrepancies between the selected points in the generated portal dose image and the predicted portal dose image.

25. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21 , wherein the evaluating includes evaluating using different gamma criterias for different selected points, wherein the radiation dose delivery is determined to be acceptable if a predetermined number of selected points in the generated radiation dose distribution image pass their gamma criteria.

26. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21 , wherein the evaluation is in real-time.

Assignments (2)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 10, 2023
From: TOIMELA, LASSE HEIKKI; NORD, JANNE
To: VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL AG
Reel/Frame 062325/0673 →
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Jan 10, 2023
From: VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL AG
To: SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS INTERNATIONAL AG
Reel/Frame 062338/0672 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation 15968852 · May 2, 2018
Continuation 14677392 · Apr 2, 2015
Related Publication 20220054863A1 · Feb 24, 2022
References Cited (64)
US 7945022B2 · Nelms et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8858414B2 · Cheng et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9089696B2 · Verhaegen et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9987504B2 · Nord · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 11191979B2 · Nord · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20020080915A1 · Frohlich · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20070041497A1 · Schnarr et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070195930A1 · Kapatoes et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080298550A1 · Otto · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090147916A1 · Fallone et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20120230462A1 · Robar et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120250971A1 · Holmes et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120305793A1 · Schieffer · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130085735A1 · Vilsmeier · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130113802A1 · Weersink et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130188856A1 · Adler, Jr. et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140105355A1 · Toimela et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20190175949A1 · Verhaegen · 2019 [cited by examiner]
CN 104027122A · 2014 [cited by applicant]
CN 104246827A · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2014056831A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
Van Elmpt et al., “A Monte Carlo based three-dimensional dose reconstruction method derived from portal dose images,” Med. Phys. vol. 33, No. 7, Jul. 2006, pp. 2426-2434. [cited by applicant]
Yu, “Intensity Modulated Are Therapy: Technology and Clinical Implementation,” University of Maryland School of Medicine, Jun. 30, 2014 (downloaded). [cited by applicant]
Sharma et al., “Portal dosimetry for pretreatment verification of IMRT plan: a comparison with 2D ion chamber array,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 11, No. 4, Fall 2010, pp. 238-248. [cited by applicant]
Arridge et al., “Optical tomography: forward and inverse problems,” arXiv:0907.2586v1 [math.AP] Jul. 15, 2009. [cited by applicant]
Ren, “Recent Developments in Numerical Techniques for Transport-Based Medical Imaging Methods,” Commun. Comput. Phys., vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-50, Jul. 2010. [cited by applicant]
Cilla et al., “Comparison of measured and computed portal dose for IMRT treatment,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 7, No. 3, Summer 2006, pp. 65-79. [cited by applicant]
Tang et al., “Comparing Radiation Treatments Using Intensity-Modulated Beams, Multiple Arcs and Single Arc,” Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, Apr. 2010, 76(5), 1554-1562. [cited by applicant]
J. Godart et al., “Reconstruction of high-resolution 3D dose from matrix measurements: error detection capability of the COMPASS correction kernel method,” Phys. Med. Biol. vol. 56 (2011), pp. 5029-5043. [cited by applicant]
Olch, “Evaluation of the accuracy of 3DVH software estimates of dose to virtual ion chamber and film in composite IMRT QA,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 11, No. 4, Fall 2010, pp. 81-86. [cited by applicant]
Webb, “Volumetric-modulated arc therapy: its role in radiation therapy,” Medical Physics Web, Jun. 25, 2009. [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., “Arc-modulated radiation therapy (AMRT): a single-arc form of intensity-modulated arc therapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. vol. 53 (2008), pp. 6291-6303. [cited by applicant]
Karin W. Lamberts et al., “Qualitative determination of errors causing portal dose differences using gamma evaluation parameters,” Medical Engineering Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Aug. 2005, Course Code: 8Z150. [cited by applicant]
Van Elmpt et al., “A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 88 (1008), pp. 289-309. [cited by applicant]
Vieira, “Dosimetric Verification of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy with an Electronic Portal Imaging Device,” Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Erasmus MC/Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Gr… [cited by applicant]
Low et al., “A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions,” Medical Physics, vol. 25, No. 5, May 1998, pp. 656-661. [cited by applicant]
Wendling et al: “A fast algorithm for gamma evaluation in 3D,” Medical Physics, AIP, Melville, NY, US, vol. 34, No. 5, Apr. 19, 2007, pp. 1647-1654, XP012103402, Section II. Materials and Methods. [cited by applicant]
Yuan Jiankui et al: “A γ dose distribution evaluation technique using the k-d tree for nearest neighbor searching,” Medical Physics, AIP, Melville, NY, US, vol. 37, No. 9, Aug. 20, 2010, pp. 4868-4873, XP0121449959, Sec… [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/EP2013/070797, dated Nov. 19, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Williams, “IMRT: delivery techniques and quality assurance”, The British Journal of radiology, 76 (2003), 766-776. [cited by applicant]
Winiecki et al., “The gamma evaluation method as a routine QA procedure of IMRT”, Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother., 2009 14/5, 162-168. [cited by applicant]
Bailey et al., “EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems”, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 3, No. 4, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Fuangrod et al., “Development of EPID-based Real Time Dose Verification for Dynamic IMRT”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 56, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Fuangrod et al., “A system for EPID-based real-time treatment delivery verification during dynamic IMRT treatment”, Med. Phys. 40 (9), Sep. 2013. [cited by applicant]
Nijsten et al. “A global calibration model for s-Si EPIDs used for transit dosimetry”, Med. Phys. 34 (10), Oct. 2007. [cited by applicant]
Rowshanfarzad et al., “Measurement and modeling of the effect of support arm backscatter on dosimetry with a Varian EPID”, Med. Phys. 37 (5), May 2010. [cited by applicant]
Van Esch et al: “The use of an aSi-based EPID for routine absolute dosimetric pre-treatment verification of dynamic IMRT fields,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 71, No. 2, May 2004, pp. 223-234, XP055087412, Section 2.… [cited by applicant]
Tyler et al., “Clinical validation of an in-house EPID dosimetry system for IMRT QA at the Prince of Wales Hospital,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 444 (2013) 012043. [cited by applicant]
Van Esch et al., “Optimized Varian aSi portal dosimetry: development of datasets for collective use,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 14, No. 6, 2013, pp. 82-99. [cited by applicant]
Wendling et al., “A simple backprojection algorithm for 3D in vivo [cited by applicant]
Sattarivand et al., “Effects of ROI Placement on PET-Based Assessment of Tumor Response to Therapy,” International Journal of Molecular Imaging, vol. 2013 (2013), Article ID 132804. [cited by applicant]
Tam et al., “Reducing excess radiation from portal imaging of pediatric brain tumors,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 14, No. 5, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Court et al., “Experimental evaluation of the accuracy of skin dose calculation for a commercial treatment planning system,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 9, No. 1, 2008, pp. 29-35. [cited by applicant]
Shiau et al., “Left-Sided Whole Breast Irradiation with Hybrid-IMRT and Helical Tomotherapy Domestic Comparison,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014 (2014), Article ID 741326. [cited by applicant]
Depuydt et al., “A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 62, 2002, pp. 309-319. [cited by applicant]
European Examination Report issued May 15, 2017, in European Application No. 16163147.8. [cited by applicant]
Wendling et al., “A fast algorithm for gamma evaluation in 3D”, Medical Physics, AIP, Melville, NY, US, vol. 34, No. 5, Apr. 19, 2007, pp. 1647-1654. [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report issued Aug. 16, 2016, in European Application No. 16163147.8. [cited by applicant]
European Examination Report issued Mar. 9, 2018, in European Application No. 16163147.8. [cited by applicant]
Summons to attend Oral Proceedings issued Sep. 20, 2018, in European Patent Application No. 16163147.8. [cited by applicant]
Office Action issued Sep. 4, 2019, in Chinese Patent Application No. 2016102011527. [cited by applicant]
Office Action issued Jan. 21, 2020, in Chinese Patent Application No. 201610201152.7. [cited by applicant]
Office Action and Search Report issued May 26, 2021, in Chinese Patent Application No. 202010242209.4. [cited by applicant]
Office Action issued Mar. 4, 2019, in Chinese Patent Application No. 2016102011527. [cited by applicant]