Purpose: In this study, the dosimetric accuracy of analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) was investigated for small radiation fields incident on phantoms of various metals that include stainless steel grade 316L (SS316L) and titanium alloy grade 5 (Ti5) implants. In addition, the effects of using metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (O-MAR, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH) were evaluated. Methods: The evaluations of AAA and AXB were performed by comparing the crossline profiles calculated by AAA and AXB with GafChromic TM EBT3 film measurements at the phantom-implant interfaces and in close vicinity of implant materials for small field sizes (1 9 1 cm 2 , 2 9 2 cm 2 , 3 9 3 cm 2 , and 4 9 4 cm 2 ) of a 6 MV flattening filter free photon beam. O-MAR corrected and uncorrected (UC) computed tomography (CT) images were used for dose calculations. The values of average and standard deviations (SD) of Hounsfield unit (HU) for selected regions of each case were evaluated. The differences in average dose percentages in defined regions were calculated to quantify the relative dosimetric changes between doses calculated on UC and O-MAR corrected CT images. Results: Compared to UC images, the values of SD were reduced, and the average HU became closer to its reference value in the O-MAR images. There was some discrepancy in average dose percentage differences between calculations using UC and O-MAR images at 1 cm above the SS316L implant (average dose percentage differences were AXB/UC = 5.9% and AXB/O-MAR = À1.2%; AAA/UC = 2.2%, and AAA/O-MAR = À0.8%). Neither AAA nor AXB algorithms predict increase in dose at upper phantom-implant interface (4.9%, 9.9%. 13.5%, and 13.8% for the fields from 1 9 1 cm 2 to 4 9 4 cm 2 , respectively). At the side of the SS316L implant (where dark streak artifacts exist), dose difference averages were estimated as À 1.1% and 22.3% when AXB/O-MAR and AXB/UC calculations are compared with EBT3 measurements, respectively. Dose predictions at 1 cm below the SS316L implant were underestimated by AXB/O-MAR (average À0.5%) and AXB/ UC (average 2.0%). Conclusions:The O-MAR tool was shown to have a favorable dosimetric effect or no effect on the calculations in the upper proximity of the implant materials. The dose differences between EBT3 film measurements and calculations at upper phantom-implant interfaces were smaller when they were calculated using O-MAR images. However, the dose differences increased when O-MAR corrected images were used for AAA calculations at lower phantom-implant interfaces. Use of O-MAR enabled closer agreement for the AXB algorithm, especially in the dark streak artifact regions. The O-MAR algorithm should be used when the dose is calculated with the AXB algorithm in cases of patients with the metal implants. The estimations using AAA and AXB algorithms, in phantom setups, with Ti5 implant material were found to be closer to the EBT3 film measurements, when compared with th...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To evaluate prostate volume changes during radiation therapy using implanted gold markers and on‐board imaging. Methods: Twenty‐five patients were included who underwent an implantation of three gold markers. Cartesian coordinates of markers were assessed in kV‐images. The coordinates of centers of two markers were measured on kV‐images from the center of the marker at the apex which was reference. The distances between the markers were extrapolated from the coordinates using the Euclid formula. The radius of the sphere through markers was calculated using sinus theorem. The prostate volume for the first and last fraction was substituted with a sphere model and was calculated for each patient. The t‐test was used for analysis. Results: The mean prostate volume for first and last fraction was 24.65 and 20.87 cc, respectively (p≤0.05). The prostate volume was smaller for 23 patients, whereas there was an expansion for 2 patients. Fifteen patients had androgen deprivation during radiotherapy (H group) and ten did not (NH group). The mean prostate volume for the first and last fraction for the NH group was 30.73 cc and 24.89 cc and for the H group 20.84 cc and 18.19 cc, respectively. There was a 15.8% volume change during treatment for the NH group and 12.2% for the H group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The radius difference of the theoretical sphere for the first and last fraction was 0.98 mm (range, 0.09–2.95 mm) and remained below 2 mm in 88% of measurements. Conclusion: There was a significant volume change during prostate radiotherapy. The difference between H group and NH group was not significant. The radius changes did not exceed 3 mm and it was below adaptive treatment requirements. Our results indicate that prostate volume changes during treatment should be taken into account during contouring and treatment planning.