Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Acta Oncol ; 59(5): 511-517, 2020 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31694438

RESUMEN

Background: Dosimetric effects of inaccuracies of output factors (OFs) implemented in treatment planning systems (TPSs) were investigated.Materials and methods: Modified beam models (MBM) for which the OFs of small fields (down to 1 × 1 cm2) were increased by up to 12% compared to the original beam models (OBM) were created for two TPSs. These beam models were used to recalculate treatment plans of different complexity. Treatment plans using stereotactic 3D-conformal (s3D-CRT) for brain metastasis as well as VMAT plans for head and neck and prostate cancer patients were generated. Dose distributions calculated with the MBM and the OBM were compared to measured dose distributions acquired using film dosimetry and a 2D-detector-array. For the s3D-CRT plans the calculated and measured dose at the isocenter was evaluated. For VMAT, gamma pass rates (GPRs) were calculated using global gamma index with 3%/3 mm, 2%/3 mm, 1%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a 20% threshold. Contribution of small fields to the total fluence was expressed as the ratio (F) of fluence trough leaf openings smaller than 2 cm to the total fluence.Results: Using film dosimetry for the s3D-CRT plans, the average of the ratio of calculated dose to measured dose at the isocenter was 1.01 and 1.06 for the OBM and MBM model, respectively. A significantly lower GPR of the MBM compared to the OBM was only found for the localized prostate cases (F = 12.4%) measured with the 2D-detector-array and an acceptance criterion of 1%/3 mm.Conclusion: The effects of uncertainties in small field OFs implemented in TPSs are most pronounced for s3D-CRT cases and can be clearly identified using patient specific quality assurance. For VMAT these effects mainly remain undetected using standard patient specific quality assurance. Using tighter acceptance criteria combined with an analysis of the fluence generated by small fields can help identifying inaccuracies of OFs implemented in TPSs.


Asunto(s)
Modelación Específica para el Paciente , Radiometría/normas , Radiocirugia/normas , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/normas , Radioterapia Conformacional/normas , Neoplasias Encefálicas/radioterapia , Neoplasias Encefálicas/secundario , Simulación por Computador , Neoplasias de Cabeza y Cuello/radioterapia , Humanos , Masculino , Aceleradores de Partículas , Fantasmas de Imagen , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud , Radiometría/estadística & datos numéricos , Radiocirugia/efectos adversos , Radiocirugia/instrumentación , Radiocirugia/estadística & datos numéricos , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/efectos adversos , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/estadística & datos numéricos , Radioterapia Conformacional/efectos adversos , Radioterapia Conformacional/instrumentación , Radioterapia Conformacional/estadística & datos numéricos , Incertidumbre
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA