Gamma index comparison has been established as a method for patient specific quality assurance in IMRT. Detector arrays can replace radiographic film systems to record 2D dose distributions and fulfill quality assurance requirements. These electronic devices present spatial resolution disadvantages with respect to films. This handicap can be partially overcome with a multiple acquisition sequence of adjacent 2D dose distributions. The detector spatial response influence can also be taken into account through the convolution of the calculated dose with the detector spatial response. A methodology that employs both approaches could allow for enhancements of the quality assurance procedure. 35 beams from different step and shoot IMRT plans were delivered on a phantom. 2D dose distributions were recorded with a PTW-729 ion chamber array for individual beams, following the multiple acquisition methodology. 2D dose distributions were also recorded on radiographic films. Measured dose distributions with films and with the PTW-729 array were processed with the software RITv5.2 for Gamma index comparison with calculated doses. Calculated dose was also convolved with the ion chamber 2D response and the Gamma index comparisons with the 2D dose distribution measured with the PTW-729 array was repeated. 3.7 ± 2.7% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index when using radiographic films compared with calculated dose, with a minimum of 0.67 and a maximum of 13.27. With the PTW-729 multiple acquisition methodology compared with calculated dose, 4.1 ± 1.3% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index, with a minimum of 1.44 and a maximum of 11.26. With the PTW- multiple acquisition methodology compared with convolved calculated dose, 2.7 ± 1.3% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index, with a minimum of 0.42 and a maximum of 5.75. The results obtained in this work suggest that the comparison of merged adjacent dose distributions with convolved calculated dose represents an enhancement in the methodology for IMRT patient specific quality assurance with the PTW-729 ion chamber array.
Purpose: To analyse the impact of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf width in multiple metastases radiosurgery (SRS) considering the target distance to isocenter and rotational displacements. Methods: Ten plans were optimised. The plans were created with Elements Multiple Mets SRS v2·0 (Brainlab AG, Munchen, Germany). The mean number of metastases per plan was 5 ± 2 [min 3, max 9], and the mean volume of gross tumour volume (GTV) was 1·1 ± 1·3 cc [min 0·02, max 5·1]. Planning target volume margin criterion was based on GTV-isocenter distance and target dimensions. Plans were performed using 6 MV with high-definition MLC (HDMLC) and reoptimised using 5-mm MLC (MLC-5). Plans were compared using Paddick conformity index (PCI), gradient index, monitor units , volume receiving half of prescription isodose (PIV50), maximum dose to brainstem, optic chiasm and optic nerves, and V12Gy, V10Gy and V5Gy for healthy brain were analysed. The maximum displacement due to rotational combinations was optimised by a genetic algorithm for both plans. Plans were reoptimised and compared using optimised margin. Results: HDMLC plans had better conformity and higher dose falloff than MLC-5 plans. Dosimetric differences were statistically significant (p < 0·05). The smaller the lesion volume, the higher the dosimetric differences between both plans. The effect of rotational displacements produced for each target in SRS was not dependent on the MLC (p > 0·05). Conclusions: The finer HDMLC offers dosimetric advantages compared with the MLC-5 in terms of target conformity and dose to the surrounding organs at risk. However, only dose falloff differences due to rotations depend on MLC.
Introduction: In modulated radiotherapy treatments with the jaw tracking technique (JTT), the collimator jaws can dynamically follow the multileaf collimator apertures and reduce radiation leakage. This reduction protects normal tissue from unwanted doses. Previous research has highlighted the importance of defining which patients will benefit most from JTT. Besides, some authors have expressed their concerns about possible increases in monitor units (MUs). Treatments of patients with peripheral targets and isocentre located in the patient’s midline are of particular interest. The current work assessed the effect of JTT on these cases. Methods: JTT plans for thirty-two patients were compared to plans with the static jaws technique. The volumes of normal tissue receiving 5 Gy (V5), 10 Gy (V10) and 20 Gy (V20), mean dose (Dmean), target coverage parameters D95, D2% and Paddick’s conformity index (PCI) were compared. MUs were also registered for comparisons. The decrease in the jaws opening with JTT was correlated to the decrease in dose values in normal tissue. Results: Small decreases were observed in D95 and in D2% values, without statistical significance. A 5% average decrease in PCI values was noticed as well as significant decreases in V5, V10 and Dmean values, 9% on average. A 3% decrease in V20 was also observed. The number of MUs decreased by 2%. A significant correlation was found between the reduction of the secondary collimation opening areas and the dose delivered to normal tissue. Conclusions: JTT technique improved normal tissue protection in volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments for the patients included in the present study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.