Technical recommendations for implementation of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Helical Tomotherapy Total Body Irradiation.

As a component of myeloablative conditioning before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), Total Body Irradiation (TBI) is employed in radiotherapy centers all over the world. In recent and coming years, many centers are changing their technical setup from a conventional TBI technique to multi-isocenter conformal arc therapy techniques such as Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) or Helical Tomotherapy (HT). These techniques allow better homogeneity and control of the target prescription dose, and provide more freedom for individualized organ-at-risk sparing. The technical design of multi-isocenter/multi-plan conformal TBI is complex and should be developed carefully. A group of early adopters with conformal TBI experience using different treatment machines and treatment planning systems came together to develop technical recommendations and share experiences, in order to assist departments wishing to implement conformal TBI, and to provide ideas for standardization of practices.

Evaluation of equivalent dose to eye lens through dose equivalent Hp(3).

PURPOSE: Individual dosimetry allows to quantify doses from ionizing radiation of exposed workers. Scientific and epidemiological evidences highlight the need for adequate measures for a greater protection of the eye and a reduction in annual doses. ICRP Publication 103, illustrating the operational dose quantity Hp(d) for the individual monitoring, proposes a depth d = 3 mm for eye lens monitoring, indicating that even the Hp(0.07) can be used. In this study, it was investigated if there are differences in the evaluation of the equivalent dose to eye lens (Hlens) using Hp(3) or Hp(0.07). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A slab phantom calibration was performed by an Accredited Calibration Laboratory in terms of Hp(3) and Hp(0.07) using ext-rad TLD-100 (LiF:Mg,Ti) dosimeters. Hp(0.07) and Hp(3) were measured for 26 exposed workers to assess Hlens. The measuring took place monthly in 2017 to obtain both semestral and annual doses. RESULTS: Hlens(0.07) was always smaller than Hlens(3). However, the differences were not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney test, p > 0.05) for both semestral and annual doses. The percentage differences were 7 ±â€¯3%, 6 ±â€¯3% and 7 ±â€¯2% for I semester, II semester and whole year, respectively. The mean underestimation index <10%, intra-class correlation coefficient >0.99, coefficient of variation <3% and the excellent correlation (R2 ≈ 0.999) for both semestral and annual doses highlighted that Hp(0.07) can be used to evaluate Hlens instead of Hp(3). CONCLUSIONS: No statistical evidence was found that the use of Hp(0.07) underestimates the equivalent dose to eye lens obtained through Hp(3).

Quality assurance multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging.

PURPOSE: To propose a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality assurance procedure that can be used for multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six centers (35 MR scanners with field strengths: 1T, 1.5T, and 3T) were enrolled in the study. Two different DWI acquisition series (b-value ranges 0-1000 and 0-3000 s/mm(2) , respectively) were performed for each MR scanner. All DWI acquisitions were performed by using a cylindrical doped water phantom. Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values as well as ADC values along each of the three main orthogonal directions of the diffusion gradients (x, y, and z) were calculated. Short-term repeatability of ADC measurement was evaluated for 26 MR scanners. RESULTS: A good agreement was found between the nominal and measured mean ADC over all the centers. More than 80% of mean ADC measurements were within 5% from the nominal value, and the highest deviation and overall standard deviation were 9.3% and 3.5%, respectively. Short-term repeatability of ADC measurement was found <2.5% for all MR scanners. CONCLUSION: A specific and widely accepted protocol for quality controls in DWI is still lacking. The DWI quality assurance protocol proposed in this study can be applied in order to assess the reliability of DWI-derived indices before tackling single- as well as multicenter studies.