RESUMEN
A combined system of a 6 MV linear accelerator and a 1.5 T MRI scanner is currently being developed. In this system, the patient will be irradiated in the presence of a 1.5 T magnetic field. This causes a strong dose increase at tissue-air interfaces. Around air cavities in the patient, these effects may become problematic. Homogeneous dose distributions can be obtained around regularly shaped symmetrical cavities using opposing beams. However, for more irregularly shaped cavities this approach may not be sufficient. This study will investigate whether IMRT can be used to cope with magnetic field dose effects, in particular for target volumes adjacent to irregularly shaped air cavities. Therefore, an inverse treatment planning approach has been designed based on pre-calculated beamlet dose distribution kernels. Using this approach, optimized dose distributions were calculated for B = 1.5 T and for B = 0 T. Investigated target sites include a prostate cancer, a laryngeal cancer and an oropharyngeal cancer. Differences in the dose distribution between B = 0 and 1.5 T were minimal; only the skin dose increased for B = 1.5 T. Homogeneous dose distributions were obtained for target structures adjacent to air cavities without the use of opposing beams. These results show that a 1.5 T magnetic field does not compromise the ability to achieve desired dose distributions with IMRT.
Asunto(s)
Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodos , Modelos Biológicos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Radiometría/métodos , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/métodos , Radioterapia Conformacional/métodos , Simulación por Computador , Campos Electromagnéticos , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de la Próstata/fisiopatología , Dosificación RadioterapéuticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of ten different treatment-planning systems when intensity modulated (IMRT) plans are designed for breast treatments that include the irradiation of the internal mammary chain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A dataset of five patients (CT images and volumes of interest) was distributed to design IMRT plans on the ten systems. To minimise biases, the same geometry and clinical planning aims were imposed on the individual plans. Results were analysed in terms of dose distributions and dose volume histograms. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: For target coverage, the volume receiving more than 95% of the prescribed dose ranged from 77% (OTP) to 91% (Eclipse and Pinnacle), the volume receiving more than 107% ranged from 3.3% (Hyperion) to 23.2% (OTP). The mean dose to ipsilateral lung ranged from 13 Gy (Eclipse) to 18 Gy (OTP). The volume of the contralateral breast receiving more than 10 Gy ranged from 3% (Pinnacle) to 26% (Precise). The volume of heart receiving more than 20 Gy ranged from 7% (Eclipse) to 47% (Precise), the maximum significant dose to heart ranged from approximately 27 Gy (XiO) to approximately 49 Gy (Precise). The maximum significant dose to healthy tissue ranged from approximately 51 Gy (Eclipse) to approximately 62 Gy (OTP). It was also possible to show that the treatment geometry proposed here enables to minimise contralateral breast irradiation while keeping minimal ipsilateral lung (or heart) involvement and satisfactory target coverage.