Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Doses delivered by portal imaging quality assurance in routine practice of adjuvant breast radiotherapy worth to by monitored and compensated in some cases.
Kefs, Sami; Giraud, Jean-Yves; Naud, Julie; Henry, Isabelle; Gabelle-Flandin, Isabelle; Balosso, Jacques; Chaikh, Abdulhamid; Verry, Camille.
Affiliation
  • Kefs S; Department of Cancerology-Radiotherapy, University Hospital Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France.
  • Giraud JY; INSERM SRMR Team (Synchrotron Radiation and Medical Research), ESRF, Grenoble, France.
  • Naud J; Department of Cancerology-Radiotherapy, University Hospital Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France.
  • Henry I; INSERM SRMR Team (Synchrotron Radiation and Medical Research), ESRF, Grenoble, France.
  • Gabelle-Flandin I; Department of Cancerology-Radiotherapy, University Hospital Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France.
  • Balosso J; Department of Cancerology-Radiotherapy, University Hospital Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France.
  • Chaikh A; Department of Cancerology-Radiotherapy, University Hospital Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France.
  • Verry C; Department of Cancerology-Radiotherapy, University Hospital Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Quant Imaging Med Surg ; 11(8): 3481-3493, 2021 Aug.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34341725
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Imaging, in radiotherapy, has become a routine tool for repositioning of the target volume at each session. The repositioning precision, currently infracentimetric, evolves along with the irradiation techniques. This retrospective study aimed to identify practices and doses resulting from the use of high energy planar imaging (portal imaging) in daily practice.

METHODS:

A retrospective survey of portal images (PIs) was carried out over 10 years for 2,403 patients and for three linacs (1 Elekta SLi, 2 Varian Clinac) for postoperative mammary irradiations. Images were taken using a standardized number of monitor units (MU) for all patients. Due to the variable sensitivities of the detectors and the possibility of adjustment of the detector-patient distance, the number of MU were 3; 2 and 1 respectively, for Elekta SLi®, Clinac 600® and Clinac 2100®. Then, a representative cumulated dose was calculated in simplified reference conditions (5 cm depth, beam of 10 cm × 10 cm, 6 MV), considering the total number of images taken during the whole treatment course. The consistency between the representative doses and the actual absorbed doses received by the patients was verified by simulating a series of typical cases with the treatment plan dose calculation system.

RESULTS:

The delivered doses differ significantly between the three linacs. The mean representative dose values by complete treatment were 0.695; 0.241 and 0.216 Gy, respectively, for SLi, Clinac 600 and Clinac 2100. However, 15 patients were exposed to a dose >2 Gy with a maximum dose of 5.05 Gy. The simulated doses were very similar to the representative doses.

CONCLUSIONS:

A significant dose delivery was highlighted by this study. These representative doses are presently communicated weekly to the radiation oncologist for the radiation protection of their patients. Moreover, they should be taken into account in a possible study of long-term stochastic risks.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Language: En Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Language: En Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: