No abstract

Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for total body irradiation (TBI) is practiced in several centers using the TomoTherapy System. In this context the planning target volume (PTV) is the entire body including the skin. A safety margin in the air surrounding the body should be added to take into account setup errors. But using inverse planning, over‐fluence peak could be generated in the skin region to insure dose homogeneity. This work proposes to study the performance of the use of a virtual bolus (VB). A VB is a material placed on the skin surface during planning, but absent for the real treatment. The optimal VB that compensates large setup errors without introducing a high‐dose increase or hot spots for small setup errors was determined. For two cylindrical phantoms, 20 VBs with different densities, thicknesses or designs were tested. Dose coverage of the PTV (V95%) in the presence of simulated setup errors was computed to assess the VB performance. A measure of the dose increase in the phantom center due to the absence of the VB during treatment was also achieved. Finally, the fluence peak at the phantom edge was measured in complete buildup conditions using a large phantom and a detector matrix. Using these VBs, simulated setup errors were compensated to a minimum value of 2.6 and 2.1 cm for small and large phantom, respectively (and only 1.2 and 1.7 cm with no VB). An optimal double‐layer VB was found with a density of 0.4 kg.normalm−3 and a total thickness of 8 mm; an inner layer of 5 mm was declared as the target for the treatment planning system and an additional layer of 3 mm was added to avoid the over‐fluence peak. Using this VB, setup errors were compensated up to 2.9 cm. The dose increase was measured to be only +1.5% at the phantom center and over‐fluence peak was strongly decreased.PACS numbers: 87.53 Bn, 87.55 D‐, 87.55 de, 87.55 dk

PurposeTo assess the efficiency of combined use of ArcCheck® detector (AC) and portal dosimetry (PDIP) for delivery quality assurance of head and neck and prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy.Materials and methodsMeasurement processes were studied with the Gamma index method according to three analysis protocols. The detection sensitivity to technical errors of each individual or combined measurement processes was studied by inserting collimator, dose and MLC opening error into five head and neck and five prostate initial treatment plans. A total of 220 plans were created and 660 analyses were conducted by comparing measurements to error free planned dose matrix.ResultsFor head and neck localization, collimator errors could be detected from 2° for AC and 3° for PDIP. Dose and MLC errors could be detected from 2% and 0.5 mm for AC and PDIP. Depending on the analysis protocol, the detection sensitivity of total simulated errors ranged from 54% to 88% for AC vs 40% to 74% for PDIP and 58% to 92% for the combined process. For the prostate localization, collimator errors could be detected from 4° for AC while they could not be detected by PDIP. Dose and MLC errors could be detected from 3% and 0.5 mm for AC and PDIP. The detection sensitivity of total simulated errors ranged from 30% to 56% for AC vs 16% to 38% for PDIP and 30% to 58% for combined process.ConclusionThe combined use of the two measurement processes did not statistically improve the detectability of technical errors compared to use of single process.

No abstract

To assess the interest of Gafchromic films in detection of patient's peak skin dose (PSD) in interventional cardiology. A prospective study of 112 patients was conducted (July-December 2015). Three diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were evaluated: coronary angiography (CA), coronary angiography and coronary angioplasty for one or two vessels disease (CA-PTCA) and coronary angioplasty of complex chronic total occlusion (CTO). Dosimetric indicators (DIs) were collected and PSD were measured with Gafchromic films. Dose distribution was evaluated within 10 'Thorax Body-zone' defined by the system. Correlations between PSD and DI or dose distribution were computed. Delivered dose increased in complex procedures. The PSD were 0.121 ± 0.063 Gy for CA, 0.256 ± 0.142 Gy for CA-PTCA and 1.116 ± 0.721 Gy for CTO. High correlations were observed for PSD and DI as well for dose distribution within the 'Thorax Body-zone'. Film dosimetry is suggested for CTO procedures since the threshold of 2 Gy for skin injuries is likely to be exceeded.