No abstract

Pretreatment intensity-modulated radiotherapy quality assurance is performed using simple rectangular or cylindrical phantoms; thus, the dosimetric errors caused by complex patient-specific anatomy are absent in the evaluation objects. In this study, we construct a system for generating patient-specific three-dimensional (3D)-printed phantoms for radiotherapy dosimetry. An anthropomorphic head phantom containing the bone and hollow of the paranasal sinus is scanned by computed tomography (CT). Based on surface rendering data, a patient-specific phantom is formed using a fused-deposition-modeling-based 3D printer, with a polylactic acid filament as the printing material. Radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeters can be inserted in the 3D-printed phantom. The phantom shape, CT value, and absorbed doses are compared between the actual and 3D-printed phantoms. The shape difference between the actual and printed phantoms is less than 1 mm except in the bottom surface region. The average CT value of the infill region in the 3D-printed phantom is -6 ± 18 Hounsfield units (HU) and that of the vertical shell region is 126 ± 18 HU. When the same plans were irradiated, the dose differences were generally less than 2%. These results demonstrate the feasibility of the 3D-printed phantom for artificial in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy quality assurance.

In the phantom evaluations, AXB and XVMC agreed better with measurements than did AAA. Calculations differed in the density-changing zones (substance boundaries) between AXB/XVMC and AAA. In the lung SBRT cases, a comparative analysis of dose-volumetric data and dose distributions with XVMC demonstrated that the AXB provided better agreement with XVMC than AAA. The computation time of AXB was faster than that of XVMC; therefore, AXB has better balance in terms of the dosimetric performance and computation speed for clinical use than XVMC.

DTT radiotherapy using a gimbal mounted linac was clinically feasible for lung treatment without any severe acute toxicity.

Application of IR Tracking substantially reduced the geometric error caused by respiratory motion; however, an intrafractional error due to baseline drift of >3 mm was occasionally observed. To compensate for EBD, the authors recommend checking the target and IR marker positions constantly and updating the 4D model several times during a treatment session.