ABSTRACT
This study aims to evaluate the output factors (OPF) of different radiation therapy planning systems (TPSs) using a plastic scintillator detector (PSD). The validation results for determining a practical field size for clinical use were verified. The implemented validation system was an Exradin W2 PSD. The focus was to validate the OPFs of the small irradiation fields of two modeled radiation TPSs using RayStation version 10.0.1 and Monaco version 5.51.10. The linear accelerator used for irradiation was a TrueBeam with three energies: 4, 6, and 10 MV. RayStation calculations showed that when the irradiation field size was reduced from 10 × 10 to 0.5 × 0.5 cm2, the results were within 2.0% of the measured values for all energies. Similarly, the values calculated using Monaco were within approximately 2.0% of the measured values for irradiation field sizes between 10 × 10 and 1.5 × 1.5 cm2 for all beam energies of interest. Thus, PSDs are effective validation tools for OPF calculations in TPS. A TPS modeled with the same source data has different minimum irradiation field sizes that can be calculated. These findings could aid in verification of equipment accuracy for treatment planning requiring highly accurate dose calculations and for third-party evaluation of OPF calculations for TPS.
ABSTRACT
In the preparation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), patient-specific verification is widely employed to optimize the treatment. To accurately estimate the accumulated dose and obtain the field-by-field or segment-by-segment verification, an original IMRT verification tool using scintillator light and an analysis workflow was developed in this study. The raw light distribution was calibrated with respect to the irradiated field size dependency and light diffusion in the water. The calibrated distribution was converted to dose quantity and subsequently compared with the results of the clinically employed plan. A criterion of 2-mm dose-to-agreement and 3% dose difference was specified in the gamma analysis with a 10% dose threshold. By applying the light diffusion calibration, the maximum dose difference was corrected from 7.7 cGy to 3.9 cGy around the field edge for a 60 cGy dose, 7 × 7 cm2 irradiation field, and 10 MV beam energy. Equivalent performance was confirmed in the chromodynamic film. The average dose difference and gamma pass rate of the accumulated dose distributions in six patients were 0.8 ± 4.5 cGy and 97.4%, respectively. In the field-by-field analysis, the average dose difference and gamma pass rate in seven fields of Patient 1 were 0.2 ± 1.2 cGy and 93.9%, respectively. In the segment-by-segment analysis, the average dose difference and gamma pass rate in nine segments of Patient 1 and a 305° gantry angle were - 0.03 ± 0.2 cGy and 93.9%, respectively. This system allowed the simultaneous and independent analysis of each field or segment in the accumulated dose analysis.
Subject(s)
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , Calibration , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The indications for and the efficacy of radiation therapy after radical operation for patients with prostate cancer are not clear. We analyzed the treatment results of adjuvant radiotherapy and salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Between September 1997 and November 2004, 57 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy or salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Fifteen patients received radiation therapy because of positive margins and/or extracapsular invasion in surgical specimens (adjuvant group). Forty-two patients received radiation therapy because of rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) during follow-up (salvage group). Radiation therapy was delivered to the fossa of the prostate +/- seminal vesicles by a three-dimensional (3-D) conformal technique to a total dose of 60-66 Gy (median, 60 Gy). Biochemical control was defined as the maintenance of a PSA level of less than 0.2 ng/ml. RESULTS: The median follow-up period after radiation therapy was 33 months (range, 12-98 months). Three-year biochemical control rates were 87% for the adjuvant group and 61% for the salvage group. For patients in the salvage group treated without hormone therapy, the preradiation PSA value was the most significant factor for the biochemical control rate. The 3-year biochemical control rate was 93% in patients whose preradiation PSA was 0.5 ng/ml or less and 29% in patients whose preradiation PSA was more than 0.5 ng/ml. No severe adverse effects (equal to or more than grade 3) were seen in treated patients. CONCLUSION: Radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy seemed to be effective for adjuvant therapy and for salvage therapy in patients with a preradiation PSA of 0.5 ng/ml or less. Also, radiation to the fossa of the prostate +/- seminal vesicles, to a total dose of 60-66 Gy, using a three-dimensional (3-D) conformal technique, seemed to be safe.
