Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Radiother Oncol ; 191: 110079, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38163486

ABSTRACT

This prospective feasibility trial investigated pulmonary interstitial lymphography to identify thoracic primary nodal drainage (PND). A post-hoc analysis of nodal recurrences was compared with PND for patients with early-stage lung cancer; larger studies are needed to establish correlation. Exploratory PND-inclusive stereotactic ablative radiotherapy plans were assessed for dosimetric feasibility.


Subject(s)
Lung Neoplasms , Radiosurgery , Humans , Lung , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Lymphography , Prospective Studies , Feasibility Studies
2.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys ; 85(4): 1090-5, 2013 Mar 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23273994

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To determine how the respiratory phase impacts dose to normal organs during stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for pancreatic cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen consecutive patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with SBRT were included in this study. On the treatment planning 4-dimensional computed tomography (CT) scan, the planning target volume (PTV), defined as the gross tumor volume plus 3-mm margin, the duodenum, and the stomach were contoured on the end-expiration (CTexp) and end-inspiration (CTinsp) phases for each patient. A separate treatment plan was constructed for both phases with the dose prescription of 33 Gy in 5 fractions with 95% coverage of the PTV by the 100% isodose line. The dose-volume histogram (DVH) endpoints, volume of duodenum that received 20 Gy (V20), V25, and V30 and maximum dose to 5 cc of contoured organ (D5cc), D1cc, and D0.1cc, were evaluated. RESULTS: Dosimetric parameters for the duodenum, including V25, V30, D1cc, and D0.1cc improved by planning on the CTexp compared to those on the CTinsp. There was a statistically significant overlap of the PTV with the duodenum but not the stomach during the CTinsp compared to the CTexp (0.38 ± 0.17 cc vs 0.01 ± 0.01 cc, P=.048). A larger expansion of the PTV, in accordance with a Danish phase 2 trial, showed even more overlapping volume of duodenum on the CTinsp compared to that on the CTexp (5.5 ± 0.9 cc vs 3.0 ± 0.8 cc, P=.0003) but no statistical difference for any stomach dosimetric DVH parameter. CONCLUSIONS: Dose to the duodenum was higher when treating on the inspiratory than on the expiratory phase. These data suggest that expiratory gating may be preferable to inspiratory breath-hold and free breathing strategies for minimizing risk of toxicity.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Duodenum/radiation effects , Organs at Risk/radiation effects , Pancreatic Neoplasms/surgery , Radiosurgery/methods , Respiration , Respiratory-Gated Imaging Techniques/methods , Stomach/radiation effects , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Disease Progression , Exhalation , Humans , Movement , Pancreatic Neoplasms/pathology , Radiosurgery/adverse effects , Radiotherapy Dosage
3.
Med Phys ; 39(10): 6360-71, 2012 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23039672

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system is determined during commissioning and is used to model the effect of the rounded leaf-end of the multileaf collimator (MLC). This parameter attempts to model the physical difference between the radiation and light field and account for inherent leakage between leaf tips. With the increased use of single fraction high dose treatments requiring larger monitor units comes an enhanced concern in the accuracy of leakage calculations, as it accounts for much of the patient dose. This study serves to verify the dosimetric accuracy of the algorithm used to model the rounded leaf effect for the TrueBeam STx, and describes a methodology for determining best-practice parameter values, given the novel capabilities of the linear accelerator such as flattening filter free (FFF) treatments and a high definition MLC (HDMLC). METHODS: During commissioning, the nominal MLC position was verified and the DLG parameter was determined using MLC-defined field sizes and moving gap tests, as is common in clinical testing. Treatment plans were created, and the DLG was optimized to achieve less than 1% difference between measured and calculated dose. The DLG value found was tested on treatment plans for all energies (6 MV, 10 MV, 15 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FFF) and modalities (3D conventional, IMRT, conformal arc, VMAT) available on the TrueBeam STx. RESULTS: The DLG parameter found during the initial MLC testing did not match the leaf gap modeling parameter that provided the most accurate dose delivery in clinical treatment plans. Using the physical leaf gap size as the DLG for the HDMLC can lead to 5% differences in measured and calculated doses. CONCLUSIONS: Separate optimization of the DLG parameter using end-to-end tests must be performed to ensure dosimetric accuracy in the modeling of the rounded leaf ends for the Eclipse treatment planning system. The difference in leaf gap modeling versus physical leaf gap dimensions is more pronounced in the more recent versions of Eclipse for both the HDMLC and the Millennium MLC. Once properly commissioned and tested using a methodology based on treatment plan verification, Eclipse is able to accurately model radiation dose delivered for SBRT treatments using the TrueBeam STx.


Subject(s)
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiometry , Radiosurgery , Radiotherapy Dosage , Reproducibility of Results
4.
Phys Med Biol ; 57(3): 757-69, 2012 Feb 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22252134

ABSTRACT

The Varian's new digital linear accelerator (LINAC), TrueBeam STx, is equipped with a high dose rate flattening filter free (FFF) mode (6 MV and 10 MV), a high definition multileaf collimator (2.5 mm leaf width), as well as onboard imaging capabilities. A series of end-to-end phantom tests were performed, TrueBeam-based image guided radiation therapy (IGRT), to determine the geometric accuracy of the image-guided setup and dose delivery process for all beam modalities delivered using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc. In these tests, an anthropomorphic phantom with a Ball Cube II insert and the analysis software (FilmQA (3cognition)) were used to evaluate the accuracy of TrueBeam image-guided setup and dose delivery. Laser cut EBT2 films with 0.15 mm accuracy were embedded into the phantom. The phantom with the film inserted was first scanned with a GE Discovery-ST CT scanner, and the images were then imported to the planning system. Plans with steep dose fall off surrounding hypothetical targets of different sizes were created using RapidArc and IMRT with FFF and WFF (with flattening filter) beams. Four RapidArc plans (6 MV and 10 MV FFF) and five IMRT plans (6 MV and 10 MV FFF; 6 MV, 10 MV and 15 MV WFF) were studied. The RapidArc plans with 6 MV FFF were planned with target diameters of 1 cm (0.52 cc), 2 cm (4.2 cc) and 3 cm (14.1 cc), and all other plans with a target diameter of 3 cm. Both onboard planar and volumetric imaging procedures were used for phantom setup and target localization. The IMRT and RapidArc plans were then delivered, and the film measurements were compared with the original treatment plans using a gamma criteria of 3%/1 mm and 3%/2 mm. The shifts required in order to align the film measured dose with the calculated dose distributions was attributed to be the targeting error. Targeting accuracy of image-guided treatment using TrueBeam was found to be within 1 mm. For irradiation of the 3 cm target, the gammas (3%, 1 mm) were found to be above 90% in all plan deliveries. For irradiations of smaller targets (2 cm and 1 cm), similar accuracy was achieved for 6 MV and 10 MV beams. Slightly degraded accuracy was observed for irradiations with higher energy beam (15 MV). In general, gammas (3%, 2 mm) were found to be above 97% for all the plans. Our end-to-end tests showed an excellent relative dosimetric agreement and sub-millimeter targeting accuracy for 6 MV and 10 MV beams, using both FFF and WFF delivery methods. However, increased deviations in spatial and dosimetric accuracy were found when treating lesions smaller than 2 cm or with 15 MV beam.


Subject(s)
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Algorithms , Anthropometry/methods , Computer Simulation , Computers , Film Dosimetry/methods , Head/pathology , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted , Particle Accelerators/instrumentation , Phantoms, Imaging , Radiometry/methods , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation , Reproducibility of Results , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
5.
Med Phys ; 38(4): 1931-42, 2011 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21626926

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: With the introduction of flattening filter free (FFF) linear accelerators to radiation oncology, new analytical source models for a FFF beam applicable to current treatment planning systems is needed. In this work, a multisource model for the FFF beam and the optimization of involved model parameters were designed. METHODS: The model is based on a previous three source model proposed by Yang et al. ["A three-source model for the calculation of head scatter factors," Med. Phys. 29, 2024-2033 (2002)]. An off axis ratio (OAR) of photon fluence was introduced to the primary source term to generate cone shaped profiles. The parameters of the source model were determined from measured head scatter factors using a line search optimization technique. The OAR of the photon fluence was determined from a measured dose profile of a 40 x 40 cm2 field size with the same optimization technique, but a new method to acquire gradient terms for OARs was developed to enhance the speed of the optimization process. The improved model was validated with measured dose profiles from 3 x 3 to 40 x 40 cm2 field sizes at 6 and 10 MV from a TrueBeam STx linear accelerator. Furthermore, planar dose distributions for clinically used radiation fields were also calculated and compared to measurements using a 2D array detector using the gamma index method. RESULTS: All dose values for the calculated profiles agreed with the measured dose profiles within 0.5% at 6 and 10 MV beams, except for some low dose regions for larger field sizes. A slight overestimation was seen in the lower penumbra region near the field edge for the large field sizes by 1%-4%. The planar dose calculations showed comparable passing rates (> 98%) when the criterion of the gamma index method was selected to be 3%/3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The developed source model showed good agreements between measured and calculated dose distributions. The model is easily applicable to any other linear accelerator using FFF beams as the required data include only the measured PDD, dose profiles, and output factors for various field sizes, which are easily acquired during conventional beam commissioning process.


Subject(s)
Models, Theoretical , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Humans , Photons , Radiotherapy Dosage
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...