No abstract

Purpose: Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has the capacity to optimize the dose distribution. We analyzed the dosimetric differences of plans in treatment planning system (TPS) between VMAT and IMRT in treating breast cancer. Methods: Fourteen patients were simulated, planned, and treated with VMAT using single, double or partial arcs. IMRT treatments were generated using 4 to 5 tangential IMRT fields for the same patients. All treatment plans were planned for 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The VMAT and IMRT plans were compared using the planning target volume (PTV) dose and doses to the other organs at risk (OARs). Results: For the PTV, comparable minimum, mean, maximum, median, and modal dose as well equivalent sphere diameter of the structure (Equis) were observed between VMAT and IMRT plans and found that these values were significantly equal in both techniques. The right lung mean and modal doses were considerably higher in VMAT plans while maximum value was considerably lower when compared with IMRT plans. The left lung mean and modal doses were higher with VMAT while maximum doses were higher in IMRT plans. The mean dose to the heart and maximum dose to the spinal cord was lower with IMRT. The mean dose to the body was higher in VMAT plans while the maximum dose was higher in IMRT plans. Conclusion: Four field tangential IMRT delivered comparable PTV dose with generally less dose to normal tissues in our breast cancer treatment study. The IMRT plans typically had more favourable dose characteristics to the lung, heart, and spinal cord and body dose when compared with VMAT. The only minor advantage of VMAT for breast cases was slightly better PTV coverage.

Technical ReportAbstract Purpose: To find methods for optimal usage of XVI (X-ray volume imaging) system in Elekta synergy linear accelerator with different field of views for same lesion in order to minimize patient dose due to imaging. Methods: 20 scans of 2 individual patients with ca sigmoid colon and ca lung were used in this study. Kilo voltage collimators with medium field of view were used as per the preset information. Images were reconstructed for another collimator with small field of view. The set up errors were evaluated with XVI software. Shift results of both methods were compared. Results: Variation in treatment set up errors with M20 and S20 collimators were ≤ 0.2 mm in translational and 0.3 0 in rotational shifts. Results showed almost equal translational and rotational shifts in both medium and small field of views with different collimators in all the scans. Visualization of target and surrounding structures were good enough and sufficient for XVI auto matching. Conclusion: Imaging with small field of view results less patient dose compared with medium or large field of views. It is Suggestible to use collimators with small field of view wherever possible. In this study, collimators with small field of view were sufficient for both patients though the preset information indicated medium field of view. But, it always depends on the area required for matching purpose. So, individual selection is important than preset information in the XVI system.