The combination of computed tomographic (CT) venography and pulmonary angiography (CTVPA) was initially described in 1998 as a single comprehensive noninvasive imaging examination for suspected thromboembolic disease. It allowed the identification of pulmonary embolism as well as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in the abdomen, pelvis, thighs, and calves. The venographic portion of CTVPA has now been studied by multiple researchers and has been shown to be an accurate imaging study for the thigh veins in comparison with lower extremity sonography. In contrast to sonography, however, CTVPA readily and rapidly permits evaluation of the inferior vena cava, the pelvic veins, the calf veins, and all of the superficial venous system. Complex venous anatomy can be surveyed, an additional sonographic study is not required, and only a few extra minutes and images are required over and above CT pulmonary angiography. A review of 957 recent cases of suspected pulmonary embolism examined with CTVPA revealed an overall 10.5% frequency of DVT, with a nearly equal distribution of thrombosis at the common femoral, superficial femoral, popliteal, and deep calf veins. Although a variety of protocols for CTVPA may be implemented, including a contiguous helical acquisition, obtaining 5- or 10-mm-thick images every 4 cm provides a high degree of accuracy and decreases overall radiation dose.

Increasing the pitch on unenhanced helical CT for suspected renal colic to 2.5 or 3.0 appears to be an effective method of reducing radiation dose. Although accuracy of the technique did not significantly change using a pitch of 3.0 in one group of patients, compared with a pitch of 2.5 in another group of patients, image quality did decrease.

Because of the characteristics of the tomotherapy beam and delivery technique, chest wall treatment plans from tomotherapy showed adequate skin dose [more than 75% of prescribed planning target volume (PTV) dose] even without bolus.

It was previously demonstrated that dose delivered by a conventional linear accelerator using IMRT or VMAT can be reconstructed — on patient or phantom datasets — using helical diode array measurements and a technique called planned dose perturbation (PDP). This allows meaningful and intuitive analysis of the agreement between the planned and delivered dose, including direct comparison of the dose‐volume histograms. While conceptually similar to modulated arc techniques, helical tomotherapy introduces significant challenges to the PDP formalism, arising primarily from TomoTherapy delivery dynamics. The temporal characteristics of the delivery are of the same order or shorter than the dosimeter's update interval (50 ms). Additionally, the prevalence of often small and complex segments, particularly with the 1 cm Y jaw setting, lead to challenges related to detector spacing. Here, we present and test a novel method of tomotherapy‐PDP (TPDP) designed to meet these challenges. One of the novel techniques introduced for TPDP is organization of the subbeams into larger subunits called sectors, which assures more robust synchronization of the measurement and delivery dynamics. Another important change is the optional application of a correction based on ion chamber (IC) measurements in the phantom. The TPDP method was validated by direct comparisons to the IC and an independent, biplanar diode array dosimeter previously evaluated for tomotherapy delivery quality assurance. Nineteen plans with varying complexity were analyzed for the 2.5 cm tomotherapy jaw setting and 18 for the 1 cm opening. The dose differences between the TPDP and IC were 1.0%±1.1% and 1.1%±1.1%, for 2.5 and 1.0 cm jaw plans, respectively. Gamma analysis agreement rates between TPDP and the independent array were: 99.1%±1.8% (using 3% global normalization/3 mm criteria) and 93.4%±7.1% (using 2% global/2 mm) for the 2.5 cm jaw plans; for 1 cm plans, they were 95.2%±6.7% (3% G/3) and 83.8%±12% (2% G/2). We conclude that TPDP is capable of volumetric dose reconstruction with acceptable accuracy. However, the challenges of fast tomotherapy delivery dynamics make TPDP less precise than the IMRT/VMAT PDP version, particularly for the 1 cm jaw setting.PACS number: 87.55Qr