Dose painting by numbers in a standard treatment planning system using inverted dose prescription maps

Figures & data

Figure 1. Axial PET/CT images illustrating 18F-FDG tumor uptake for the three different cases. Left: cervix cancer case. Mid: head and neck cancer case. Right: lung cancer case.

Figure 2. Axial slices comparing the prescribed and obtained plan dose distribution within the tumor for cervix (left), head and neck (middle) and lung case (right) (a). Differential tumor DVHs for all three cases showing the prescribed DPBN distribution together with the obtained plan distribution (b).

Table I. (a) Comparison of prescribed and planned tumor dose distribution by 3D gamma analysis and the QF. (b) Comparison of planned to delivered dose using portal dosimetry (PD) verification, mean values for the two VMAT arcs presented.

a				b
	3D Gamma (%)		QF (%)		PD (%)
Case\Criteria	2%/2 mm	3%/3 mm		Case\Criteria	2%/2 mm	3%/3 mm
Cervix	88.7	97.3	2.6	Cervix	99.4	100.0
Head and neck	99.5	100.0	1.8	Head and neck	99.7	100.0
Lung	92.2	99.4	2.0	Lung	99.2	100.0

Figure 3. Overview of DPBN dose distribution in an axial slice for all three test cases (a). OAR and target volume DVHs for the cervix, head and neck and lung case with DPBN plans (solid lines) compared to corresponding standard homogeneous plans (dotted lines) (b).