G Yan

Characterization of a real‐time surface image‐guided stereotactic positioning system

PURPOSE The AlignRT3C system is an image-guided stereotactic positioning system (IGSPS) that provides real-time target localization. This study involves the first use of this system with three camera pods. The authors have evaluated its localization accuracy and tracking ability using a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) system and an optical tracking system in a clinical setting. METHODS A modified Rando head-and-neck phantom and five patients receiving intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were used to evaluate the calibration, registration, and position-tracking accuracies of the AlignRT3C system and to study surface reconstruction uncertainties, including the effects due to interfractional and intrafractional motion, skin tone, room light level, camera temperature, and image registration region of interest selection. System accuracy was validated through comparison with the Elekta kV CBCT system (XVI) and the Varian frameless SonArray (FSA) optical tracking system. Surface-image data sets were acquired with the AlignRT3C daily for the evaluation of pretreatment and interfractional and intrafractional motion for each patient. Results for two different reference image sets, planning CT surface contours (CTS) and previously recorded AlignRT3C optical surface images (ARTS), are reported. RESULTS The system origin displacements for the AlignRT3C and XVI systems agreed to within 1.3 mm and 0.7 degrees. Similar results were seen for AlignRT3C vs FSA. For the phantom displacements having couch angles of 0 degrees, those that utilized ART_S references resulted in a mean difference of 0.9 mm/0.4 degrees with respect to XVI and 0.3 mm/0.2 degrees with respect to FSA. For phantom displacements of more than +/- 10 mm and +/- 3 degrees, the maximum discrepancies between AlignRT and the XVI and FSA systems were 3.0 and 0.4 mm, respectively. For couch angles up to +/- 90 degrees, the mean (max.) difference between the AlignRT3C and FSA was 1.2 (2.3) mm/0.7 degrees (1.2 degrees). For all tests, the mean registration errors obtained using the CT_S references were approximately 1.3 mm/1.0 degrees larger than those obtained using the ART_S references. For the patient study, the mean differences in the pretreatment displacements were 0.3 mm/0.2 degrees between the AlignRT3C and XVI systems and 1.3 mm/1 degrees between the FSA and XVI systems. For noncoplanar treatments, interfractional motion displacements obtained using the ART_S and CT_S references resulted in 90th percentile differences within 2.1 mm/0.8 degrees and 3.3 mm/0.3 degrees, respectively, compared to the FSA system. Intrafractional displacements that were tracked for a maximum of 14 min were within 1 mm/1 degrees of those obtained with the FSA system. Uncertainties introduced by the bite-tray were as high as 3 mm/2 degrees for one patient. The combination of gantry, aSi detector panel, and x-ray tube blockage effects during the CBCT acquisition resulted in a registration error of approximately 3 mm. No skin-tone or surface deformation effects were seen with the limited patient sample. CONCLUSIONS AlignRT3C can be used as a nonionizing IGSPS with accuracy comparable to current image/marker-based systems. IGSPS and CBCT can be combined for high-precision positioning without the need for patient-attached localization devices.

Comparison of two commercial detector arrays for IMRT quality assurance

Two commercially available detector arrays were compared for their use in the quality assurance of patient‐specific IMRT treatment plans: one a diode‐based array (MapCHECK) and the other an ion chamber‐based array (MatriXX). The dependence of the response of detectors on field size, dose rate, and radiation energy was measured and compared with reference measurements using a Farmer‐type ionization chamber. The linearity of the detector response, short‐term and long‐term reproducibility, statistical uncertainty as a function of delivered dose, and the validity of the array calibration were also examined to understand the stability and uncertainty of the systems. No field size or SSD dependence was observed within the range of the field sizes and SSDs used in the study at both 6 MV and 18 MV photon energies. Both detector arrays showed negligible errors (<1%) when measuring doses of more than ~8 cGy, but exhibited errors of ~3% when measuring doses on the order of 1 cGy. While the MapCHECK showed a stable short‐term reproducibility to within measurement error, the MatriXX showed a slow but continuous increase in readings during the initial one‐hour period (about 0.8%). The MapCHECK also showed a slightly better array sensitivity correction with all the detectors having less than 1% discrepancy and more than 90% of the detectors within 0.5% variation, whereas about 60% of the MatriXX detectors showed a less than 0.5% variation and ~8% exhibited a larger than 1% discrepancy. MatriXX detectors also displayed a volume‐averaging effect consistent with its detector size of ~4.5 mm in diameter. Excellent passing rates were obtained for both detector arrays when compared with the planar dose distributions from the treatment planning system for three 6 MV IMRT fields and three 18 MV IMRT fields after the volume‐averaging effect of the MatriXX was taken into account. PACS number: 87.55.km; 87.55.Qr; 87.56.Fc

On the sensitivity of patient-specific IMRT QA to MLC positioning errors

Accurate multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positioning plays an essential role in the effective implementation of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This work evaluates the sensitivity of current patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) procedures to minor MLC leaf positioning errors. Random errors of up to 2 mm and systematic errors of ±1mm and ±2mm in MLC leaf positions were introduced into 8 clinical IMRT patient plans (totaling 53 fields). Planar dose distributions calculated with modified plans were compared to dose distributions measured with both radiochromic films and a diode matrix. The agreement between calculation and measurement was evaluated using both absolute distance‐to‐agreement (DTA) analysis and γ index with 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm criteria. It was found that both the radiochromic film and the diode matrix could only detect systematic errors on the order of 2 mm or above. The diode array had larger sensitivity than film due to its excellent detector response (such as small variation, linear response, etc.). No difference was found between DTA analysis and γ index in terms of the sensitivity to MLC positioning errors. Higher sensitivity was observed with 2%/2mm than with 3%/3mm in general. When using the diode array and 2%/2mm criterion, the IMRT QA procedure showed strongest sensitivity to MLC position errors and, at the same time, achieved clinically acceptable passing rates. More accurate dose calculation and measurement would further enhance the sensitivity of patient‐specific IMRT QA to MLC positioning errors. However, considering the significant dosimetric effect such MLC errors could cause, patient‐specific IMRT QA should be combined with a periodic MLC QA program in order to guarantee the accuracy of IMRT delivery. PACS numbers: 87.50.Gi, 87.52.Df, 87.52.Px, 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Tf, 87.53.Kn, 87.56.Fc

Calibration of a novel four‐dimensional diode array

PURPOSE The aim of this work is to develop effective calibration methods for a novel fourdimensional (4D) diode array for pretreatment verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and rotational therapy. METHODS A novel 4D diode array (ArcCHECK, Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) was developed to meet the needs of appropriate and efficient quality assurance for IMRT and especially rotational radiotherapy. The diode array presents a consistent detector image in beams eye view at arbitrary gantry angles due to isotropic arrangement of diodes in a three-dimensional (3D) cylindrical phantom. The 50 ms simultaneous update of all diodes on the detector array (fourth dimension) makes it capable of time-resolved beam delivery analysis with any rotational delivery techniques. The calibration procedure consisted of delivering and measuring a series of calibration beams with 5.8 degrees angular spacing surrounding the cylindrical diode array. Correction factors for diode intrinsic sensitivity and directional response dependence were derived from these measurements. A real-time algorithm to derive gantry angles based on the detector signal was developed to interpolate and apply the corresponding angular correction factors. RESULTS The calibration was validated with ion chamber scanned beam profiles in a 3D water tank. Excellent agreement was observed between diode array measurement and treatment planning system calculation. The accuracy of the gantry angle derivation algorithm was within 1 degree which caused a less than 0.2% dosimetric uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS With the proposed calibration method and the automatic gantry angle derivation algorithm, the 4D diode array achieved isotropic detector response and is suitable for both IMRT and rotational therapy pretreatment verification.

Assessment of the setup dependence of detector response functions for mega-voltage linear accelerators

PURPOSE Accurate modeling of beam profiles is important for precise treatment planning dosimetry. Calculated beam profiles need to precisely replicate profiles measured during machine commissioning. Finite detector size introduces perturbations into the measured profiles, which, in turn, impact the resulting modeled profiles. The authors investigate a method for extracting the unperturbed beam profiles from those measured during linear accelerator commissioning. METHODS In-plane and cross-plane data were collected for an Elekta Synergy linac at 6 MV using ionization chambers of volume 0.01, 0.04, 0.13, and 0.65 cm3 and a diode of surface area 0.64 mm2. The detectors were orientated with the stem perpendicular to the beam and pointing away from the gantry. Profiles were measured for a 10 x 10 cm2 field at depths ranging from 0.8 to 25.0 cm and SSDs from 90 to 110 cm. Shaping parameters of a Gaussian response function were obtained relative to the Edge detector. The Gaussian function was deconvolved from the measured ionization chamber data. The Edge detector profile was taken as an approximation to the true profile, to which deconvolved data were compared. Data were also collected with CC13 and Edge detectors for additional fields and energies on an Elekta Synergy, Varian Trilogy, and Siemens Oncor linear accelerator and response functions obtained. Response functions were compared as a function of depth, SSD, and detector scan direction. Variations in the shaping parameter were introduced and the effect on the resulting deconvolution profiles assessed. RESULTS Up to 10% setup dependence in the Gaussian shaping parameter occurred, for each detector for a particular plane. This translated to less than a +/- 0.7 mm variation in the 80%-20% penumbral width. For large volume ionization chambers such as the FC65 Farmer type, where the cavity length to diameter ratio is far from 1, the scan direction produced up to a 40% difference in the shaping parameter between in-plane and cross-plane measurements. This is primarily due to the directional difference in penumbral width measured by the FC65 chamber, which can more than double in profiles obtained with the detector stem parallel compared to perpendicular to the scan direction. For the more symmetric CC13 chamber the variation was only 3% between in-plane and cross-plane measurements. CONCLUSIONS The authors have shown that the detector response varies with detector type, depth, SSD, and detector scan direction. In-plane vs. cross-plane scanning can require calculation of a direction dependent response function. The effect of a 10% overall variation in the response function, for an ionization chamber, translates to a small deviation in the penumbra from that of the Edge detector measured profile when deconvolved. Due to the uncertainties introduced by deconvolution the Edge detector would be preferable in obtaining an approximation of the true profile, particularly for field sizes where the energy dependence of the diode can be neglected. However, an averaged response function could be utilized to provide a good approximation of the true profile for large ionization chambers and for larger fields for which diode detectors are not recommended.

Prevention of gross setup errors in radiotherapy with an efficient automatic patient safety system

Treatment of the wrong body part due to incorrect setup is among the leading types of errors in radiotherapy. The purpose of this paper is to report an efficient automatic patient safety system (PSS) to prevent gross setup errors. The system consists of a pair of charge‐coupled device (CCD) cameras mounted in treatment room, a single infrared reflective marker (IRRM) affixed on patient or immobilization device, and a set of in‐house developed software. Patients are CT scanned with a CT BB placed over their surface close to intended treatment site. Coordinates of the CT BB relative to treatment isocenter are used as reference for tracking. The CT BB is replaced with an IRRM before treatment starts. PSS evaluates setup accuracy by comparing real‐time IRRM position with reference position. To automate system workflow, PSS synchronizes with the record‐and‐verify (R&V) system in real time and automatically loads in reference data for patient under treatment. Special IRRMs, which can permanently stick to patient face mask or body mold throughout the course of treatment, were designed to minimize therapists workload. Accuracy of the system was examined on an anthropomorphic phantom with a designed end‐to‐end test. Its performance was also evaluated on head and neck as well as abdominalpelvic patients using cone‐beam CT (CBCT) as standard. The PSS system achieved a seamless clinic workflow by synchronizing with the R&V system. By permanently mounting specially designed IRRMs on patient immobilization devices, therapist intervention is eliminated or minimized. Overall results showed that the PSS system has sufficient accuracy to catch gross setup errors greater than 1 cm in real time. An efficient automatic PSS with sufficient accuracy has been developed to prevent gross setup errors in radiotherapy. The system can be applied to all treatment sites for independent positioning verification. It can be an ideal complement to complex image‐guidance systems due to its advantages of continuous tracking ability, no radiation dose, and fully automated clinic workflow. PACS number: 87.55.Qr

Impact of scanning parameters and breathing patterns on image quality and accuracy of tumor motion reconstruction in 4D CBCT: a phantom study

Four-dimensional, cone-beam CT (4D CBCT) substantially reduces respiration-induced motion blurring artifacts in three-dimension (3D) CBCT. However, the image quality of 4D CBCT is significantly degraded which may affect its accuracy in localizing a mobile tumor for high-precision, image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of scanning parameters (hereinafter collectively referred to as scanning sequence) and breathing patterns on the image quality and the accuracy of computed tumor trajectory for a commercial 4D CBCT system, in preparation for its clinical implementation. We simulated a series of periodic and aperiodic sinusoidal breathing patterns with a respiratory motion phantom. The aperiodic pattern was created by varying the period or amplitude of individual sinusoidal breathing cycles. 4D CBCT scans of the phantom were acquired with a manufacturer-supplied scanning sequence (4D-S-slow) and two in-house modified scanning sequences (4D-M-slow and 4D-M-fast). While 4D-S-slow used small field of view (FOV), partial rotation (200°), and no imaging filter, 4D-M-slow and 4D-M-fast used medium FOV, full rotation, and the F1 filter. The scanning speed was doubled in 4D-M-fast (100°/min gantry rotation). The image quality of the 4D CBCT scans was evaluated using contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and motion blurring ratio (MBR). The trajectory of the moving target was reconstructed by registering each phase of the 4D CBCT with a reference CT. The root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) analysis was used to quantify its accuracy. Significant decrease in CNR and SNR from 3D CBCT to 4D CBCT was observed. The 4D-S-slow and 4D-M-fast scans had comparable image quality, while the 4D-M-slow scans had better performance due to doubled projections. Both CNR and SNR decreased slightly as the breathing period increased, while no dependence on the amplitude was observed. The difference of both CNR and SNR between periodic and aperiodic breathing patterns was insignificant (p>0.48). At end-exhale phases, the motion blurring was negligible for both periodic and aperiodic breathing patterns; at mid-inhale phase, the motion blurring increased as the period, the amplitude or the amount of cycle-to-cycle variation on amplitude increased. Overall, the accuracy of localizing the moving target in 4D CBCT was within 2 mm under all studied cases. No difference in the RMSEs was noticed among the three scanning sequences. The 4D-M-fast scans, free of volume truncation artifacts, exhibited comparable image quality and accuracy in tumor motion reconstruction as the 4D-S-slow scans with reduced imaging dose (0.60 cGy vs. 0.99 cGy) due to the use of faster gantry rotation and the F1 filter, suggesting its suitability for clinical use. PACS number: 87.55.Qr.Four‐dimensional, cone‐beam CT (4D CBCT) substantially reduces respiration‐induced motion blurring artifacts in three‐dimension (3D) CBCT. However, the image quality of 4D CBCT is significantly degraded which may affect its accuracy in localizing a mobile tumor for high‐precision, image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT). The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of scanning parameters (hereinafter collectively referred to as scanning sequence) and breathing patterns on the image quality and the accuracy of computed tumor trajectory for a commercial 4D CBCT system, in preparation for its clinical implementation. We simulated a series of periodic and aperiodic sinusoidal breathing patterns with a respiratory motion phantom. The aperiodic pattern was created by varying the period or amplitude of individual sinusoidal breathing cycles. 4D CBCT scans of the phantom were acquired with a manufacturer‐supplied scanning sequence (4D‐S‐slow) and two in‐house modified scanning sequences (4D‐M‐slow and 4D‐M‐fast). While 4D‐S‐slow used small field of view (FOV), partial rotation (200°), and no imaging filter, 4D‐M‐slow and 4D‐M‐fast used medium FOV, full rotation, and the F1 filter. The scanning speed was doubled in 4D‐M‐fast (100°/min gantry rotation). The image quality of the 4D CBCT scans was evaluated using contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), and motion blurring ratio (MBR). The trajectory of the moving target was reconstructed by registering each phase of the 4D CBCT with a reference CT. The root‐mean‐squared‐error (RMSE) analysis was used to quantify its accuracy. Significant decrease in CNR and SNR from 3D CBCT to 4D CBCT was observed. The 4D‐S‐slow and 4D‐M‐fast scans had comparable image quality, while the 4D‐M‐slow scans had better performance due to doubled projections. Both CNR and SNR decreased slightly as the breathing period increased, while no dependence on the amplitude was observed. The difference of both CNR and SNR between periodic and aperiodic breathing patterns was insignificant (p>0.48). At end‐exhale phases, the motion blurring was negligible for both periodic and aperiodic breathing patterns; at mid‐inhale phase, the motion blurring increased as the period, the amplitude or the amount of cycle‐to‐cycle variation on amplitude increased. Overall, the accuracy of localizing the moving target in 4D CBCT was within 2 mm under all studied cases. No difference in the RMSEs was noticed among the three scanning sequences. The 4D‐M‐fast scans, free of volume truncation artifacts, exhibited comparable image quality and accuracy in tumor motion reconstruction as the 4D‐S‐slow scans with reduced imaging dose (0.60 cGy vs. 0.99 cGy) due to the use of faster gantry rotation and the F1 filter, suggesting its suitability for clinical use. PACS number: 87.55.Qr

A study of IMRT planning parameters on planning efficiency, delivery efficiency, and plan quality

PURPOSE To improve planning and delivery efficiency of head and neck IMRT without compromising planning quality through the evaluation of inverse planning parameters. METHODS Eleven head and neck patients with pre-existing IMRT treatment plans were selected for this retrospective study. The Pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS) was used to compute new treatment plans for each patient by varying the individual or the combined parameters of dose/fluence grid resolution, minimum MU per segment, and minimum segment area. Forty-five plans per patient were generated with the following variations: 4 dose/fluence grid resolution plans, 12 minimum segment area plans, 9 minimum MU plans, and 20 combined minimum segment area/minimum MU plans. Each plan was evaluated and compared to others based on dose volume histograms (DVHs) (i.e., plan quality), planning time, and delivery time. To evaluate delivery efficiency, a model was developed that estimated the delivery time of a treatment plan, and validated through measurements on an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. RESULTS The uncertainty (i.e., variation) of the dose-volume index due to dose calculation grid variation was as high as 8.2% (5.5 Gy in absolute dose) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and 13.3% (2.1 Gy in absolute dose) for planning at risk volumes (PRVs). Comparison results of dose distributions indicated that smaller volumes were more susceptible to uncertainties. The grid resolution of a 4 mm dose grid with a 2 mm fluence grid was recommended, since it can reduce the final dose calculation time by 63% compared to the accepted standard (2 mm dose grid with a 2 mm fluence grid resolution) while maintaining a similar level of dose-volume index variation. Threshold values that maintained adequate plan quality (DVH results of the PTVs and PRVs remained satisfied for their dose objectives) were 5 cm2 for minimum segment area and 5 MU for minimum MU. As the minimum MU parameter was increased, the number of segments and delivery time were decreased. Increasing the minimum segment area parameter decreased the plan MU, but had less of an effect on the number of segments and delivery time. Our delivery time model predicted delivery time to within 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS Increasing the dose grid while maintaining a small fluence grid allows for improved planning efficiency without compromising plan quality. Delivery efficiency can be improved by increasing the minimum MU, but not the minimum segment area. However, increasing the respective minimum MU and/or the minimum segment area to any value greater than 5 MU and 5 cm2 is not recommended because it degrades plan quality.PURPOSE To improve planning and delivery efficiency of head and neck IMRT without compromising planning quality through the evaluation of inverse planning parameters. METHODS Eleven head and neck patients with pre-existing IMRT treatment plans were selected for this retrospective study. The Pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS) was used to compute new treatment plans for each patient by varying the individual or the combined parameters of dose∕fluence grid resolution, minimum MU per segment, and minimum segment area. Forty-five plans per patient were generated with the following variations: 4 dose∕fluence grid resolution plans, 12 minimum segment area plans, 9 minimum MU plans, and 20 combined minimum segment area∕minimum MU plans. Each plan was evaluated and compared to others based on dose volume histograms (DVHs) (i.e., plan quality), planning time, and delivery time. To evaluate delivery efficiency, a model was developed that estimated the delivery time of a treatment plan, and validated through measurements on an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. RESULTS The uncertainty (i.e., variation) of the dose-volume index due to dose calculation grid variation was as high as 8.2% (5.5 Gy in absolute dose) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and 13.3% (2.1 Gy in absolute dose) for planning at risk volumes (PRVs). Comparison results of dose distributions indicated that smaller volumes were more susceptible to uncertainties. The grid resolution of a 4 mm dose grid with a 2 mm fluence grid was recommended, since it can reduce the final dose calculation time by 63% compared to the accepted standard (2 mm dose grid with a 2 mm fluence grid resolution) while maintaining a similar level of dose-volume index variation. Threshold values that maintained adequate plan quality (DVH results of the PTVs and PRVs remained satisfied for their dose objectives) were 5 cm(2) for minimum segment area and 5 MU for minimum MU. As the minimum MU parameter was increased, the number of segments and delivery time were decreased. Increasing the minimum segment area parameter decreased the plan MU, but had less of an effect on the number of segments and delivery time. Our delivery time model predicted delivery time to within 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS Increasing the dose grid while maintaining a small fluence grid allows for improved planning efficiency without compromising plan quality. Delivery efficiency can be improved by increasing the minimum MU, but not the minimum segment area. However, increasing the respective minimum MU and∕or the minimum segment area to any value greater than 5 MU and 5 cm(2) is not recommended because it degrades plan quality.

Comparison of analytic source models for head scatter factor calculation and planar dose calculation for IMRT

The purpose of this study was to choose an appropriate head scatter source model for the fast and accurate independent planar dose calculation for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MLC. The performance of three different head scatter source models regarding their ability to model head scatter and facilitate planar dose calculation was evaluated. A three-source model, a two-source model and a single-source model were compared in this study. In the planar dose calculation algorithm, in-air fluence distribution was derived from each of the head scatter source models while considering the combination of Jaw and MLC opening. Fluence perturbations due to tongue-and-groove effect, rounded leaf end and leaf transmission were taken into account explicitly. The dose distribution was calculated by convolving the in-air fluence distribution with an experimentally determined pencil-beam kernel. The results were compared with measurements using a diode array and passing rates with 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria were reported. It was found that the two-source model achieved the best agreement on head scatter factor calculation. The three-source model and single-source model underestimated head scatter factors for certain symmetric rectangular fields and asymmetric fields, but similar good agreement could be achieved when monitor back scatter effect was incorporated explicitly. All the three source models resulted in comparable average passing rates (>97%) when the 3%/3 mm criterion was selected. The calculation with the single-source model and two-source model was slightly faster than the three-source model due to their simplicity.

An approach for online evaluations of dose consequences caused by small rotational setup errors in intracranial stereotactic radiation therapy

PURPOSE The purpose of this work is to investigate the impact of small rotational errors on the magnitudes and distributions of spatial dose variations for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatment setups, and to assess the feasibility of using the original dose map overlaid with rotated contours (ODMORC) method as a fast, online evaluation tool to estimate dose changes (using DVHs) to clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs-at-risks (OARs) caused by small rotational setup errors. METHODS Fifteen intracranial SRT cases treated with either three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques were chosen for the study. Selected cases have a variety of anatomical dimensions and pathologies. Angles of ±3° and ±5° in all directions were selected to simulate the rotational errors. Dose variations in different regions of the brain, CTVs, and OARs were evaluated to illustrate the various spatial effects of dose differences before and after rotations. DVHs accounting for rotations that were recomputed by the treatment planning system (TPS) and those generated by the ODMORC method were compared. A framework of a fast algorithm for multicontour rotation implemented by ODMORC is introduced as well. RESULTS The average values of relative dose variations between original dose and recomputed dose accounting for rotations were greater than 4.0% and 10.0% in absolute mean and in standard deviation, respectively, at the skull and adjacent regions for all cases. They were less than 1.0% and 2.5% in absolute mean and in standard deviation, respectively, for dose points 3 mm away from the skull. The results indicated that spatial dose to any part of the brain organs or tumors separated from the skull or head surface would be relatively stable before and after rotations. Statistical data of CTVs and OARs indicate the lens and cochleas have the large dose variations before and after rotations, whereas the remaining ROIs have insignificant dose differences. DVH comparisons suggest that the ODMORC method is able to estimate the DVH of CTVs fairly accurately (within 1.5% of relative dose differences for evaluation volumes). The results also show that most of the OARs including the brain stem, spinal cord, chiasm, hippocampuses, optic nerves, and retinas, which were relatively distal from the skull and surface, had good agreement (within 2.0% of relative dose differences for 0.1 cc of the volumes ) between the ODMORC method and the recomputation, whereas OARs more proximate to the bone-tissue interface or surface, such as the lenses and cochlea, had larger dose variations (greater than 5.0%) for some cases due to the incapability of the ODMORC to account for scatter contribution variations proximate to interfaces and intrinsic dose calculation uncertainties for ROIs with small volumes. CONCLUSIONS The ODMORC method can be implemented as an online evaluation system for rotation-induced dose changes of CTVs and most OARs and for other related dose consequence analyses.