BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to assess the impact on dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) by using four differently generated CT datasets for dose calculation in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of lung and liver tumors. Additionally, dose differences between 3D conformal radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans calculated on these CT datasets were determined.MethodsTwenty SBRT patients, ten lung cases and ten liver cases, were retrospectively selected for this study. Treatment plans were optimized on average intensity projection (AIP) CTs using 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Afterwards, the plans were copied to the planning CTs (PCT), maximum intensity projection (MIP) and mid-ventilation (MidV) CT datasets and dose was recalculated keeping all beam parameters and monitor units unchanged. Ipsilateral lung and liver volumes and dosimetric parameters for PTV (Dmean, D2, D98, D95), ipsilateral lung and liver (Dmean, V30, V20, V10) were determined and statistically analysed using Wilcoxon test.ResultsSignificant but small mean differences were found for PTV dose between the CTs (lung SBRT: ≤2.5 %; liver SBRT: ≤1.6 %). MIPs achieved the smallest lung and the largest liver volumes. OAR mean doses in MIP plans were distinctly smaller than in the other CT datasets. Furthermore, overlapping of tumors with the diaphragm results in underestimated ipsilateral lung dose in MIP plans. Best agreement was found between AIP and MidV (lung SBRT). Overall, differences in liver SBRT were smaller than in lung SBRT and VMAT plans achieved slightly smaller differences than 3D-CRT plans.ConclusionsOnly small differences were found for PTV parameters between the four CT datasets. Larger differences occurred for the doses to organs at risk (ipsilateral lung, liver) especially for MIP plans. No relevant differences were observed between 3D-CRT or VMAT plans. MIP CTs are not appropriate for OAR dose assessment. PCT, AIP and MidV resulted in similar doses. If a 4DCT is acquired PCT can be omitted using AIP or MidV for treatment planning.

<p>Shallow geothermal energy can contribute to a regenerative supply of urban heating and cooling loads and hence, reduce primary energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In the city of Munich, which hosts a very productive shallow aquifer, conditions are outstanding for the thermal use of groundwater. Therefore, already more than 2800 shallow geothermal systems are installed and due to better economic incentives, numbers are rising. Thus, the future development of this already intensely used urban aquifer holds challenges to avoid conflicting uses, but also opportunities to build synergies and balance the energy budget.</p><p>However, fostering a sustainable development is only possible with knowledge about the dynamic hydraulic and thermal behaviour of the groundwater and its anthropogenic and natural influences. Currently, this information is missing on a city scale as a decision basis for the responsible growth of thermal groundwater use. As a consequence, water authorities have to become increasingly restrictive when granting licenses to cope with preventive drinking water protection. Therefore, tools for the thermal management of aquifers are needed to enable resilient decision making.</p><p>The project GEO.KW (2019-2021), funded by the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, took up this challenge and develops a flexible management and optimisation tool for the thermal use of groundwater. As pilot area for an implementation, Munich offers a dynamic and well-monitored hydrogeology. The tool’s core element is the coupling between a thermal-hydraulic groundwater model and a linear optimisation model for distributed energy systems. This interdisciplinary approach, allows us to include the heat storage potential of the aquifer and study the coverable heating and cooling demand depending on the thermal resource at high temporal and spatial resolution. The optimisation integrates all regulatory restrictions of water resource management, like temperature or extraction limits, and comparatively analyses conventional heating and cooling systems alongside with thermal groundwater use. As cost factor in the optimisation, greenhouse gas emissions and economic cost is evaluated.</p><p>The development focuses on using highly parallelised open-source codes and efficient code coupling. The numerical groundwater simulation is performed with <em>PFLOTRAN</em>, a code specifically built for scalability on supercomputers. It is coupled to the linear optimiser <em>urbs </em>through the minimally invasive coupling library <em>preCICE </em>and the simulations are performed on the <em>SuperMUC-NG</em> in Garching, Germany. Since the parallelisation of optimisation problems is not straightforward, a decomposition procedure is introduced to assure performance with high resolution models.</p><p>The optimisation tool and associated methods will also be applicable to other urban areas. Thus, it will offer the decision support for an optimised growth of thermal groundwater use to assure its contribution to emission-free and decarbonised heating and cooling of cities.</p>

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract