Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Appl Clin Med Phys ; 15(3): 4495, 2014 May 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24892330

RESUMEN

The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a gantry-mounted detector system and a couch set detector system using a systematic multileaf collimator positional error manually introduced for volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Four head and neck and esophagus VMAT plans were evaluated by measurement using an electronic portal imaging device and an ion chamber array. Each plan was copied and duplicated with a 1 mm systematic MLC positional error in the left leaf bank. Direct comparison of measurements for plans with and without the error permitted observational characteristics for quality assurance performance between detectors. A total of 48 different plans were evaluated for this testing. The mean percentage planar dose differences required to satisfy a 95% match between plans with and without the MLCPE were 5.2% ± 0.5% for the chamber array with gantry motion, 8.12% ± 1.04% for the chamber array with a static gantry at 0°, and 10.9%± 1.4% for the EPID with gantry motion. It was observed that the EPID was less accurate due to overresponse of the MLCPE in the left leaf bank. The EPID always images bank-A on the ipsilateral side of the detector, whereas for a chamber array or for a patient, that bank changes as it crosses the -90° or +90° position. A couch set detector system can reproduce the TPS calculated values most consistently. We recommend it as the most reliable patient specific QA system for MLC position error testing. This research is highlighted by the finding of up to 12.7% dose variation for H/N and esophagus cases for VMAT delivery, where the mere source of error was the stated clinically acceptability of 1 mm MLC position deviation of TG-142.


Asunto(s)
Lechos , Análisis de Falla de Equipo/instrumentación , Posicionamiento del Paciente/instrumentación , Radiometría/instrumentación , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/métodos , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada/instrumentación , Diseño de Equipo , Radiometría/métodos , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada/métodos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
2.
J Med Phys ; 38(3): 148-54, 2013 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24049323

RESUMEN

In high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, the source dwell times and dwell positions are vital parameters in achieving a desirable implant dose distribution. Inverse treatment planning requires an optimal choice of these parameters to achieve the desired target coverage with the lowest achievable dose to the organs at risk (OAR). This study was designed to evaluate the optimum source step size and maximum source dwell time for prostate brachytherapy implants using an Ir-192 source. In total, one hundred inverse treatment plans were generated for the four patients included in this study. Twenty-five treatment plans were created for each patient by varying the step size and maximum source dwell time during anatomy-based, inverse-planned optimization. Other relevant treatment planning parameters were kept constant, including the dose constraints and source dwell positions. Each plan was evaluated for target coverage, urethral and rectal dose sparing, treatment time, relative target dose homogeneity, and nonuniformity ratio. The plans with 0.5 cm step size were seen to have clinically acceptable tumor coverage, minimal normal structure doses, and minimum treatment time as compared with the other step sizes. The target coverage for this step size is 87% of the prescription dose, while the urethral and maximum rectal doses were 107.3 and 68.7%, respectively. No appreciable difference in plan quality was observed with variation in maximum source dwell time. The step size plays a significant role in plan optimization for prostate implants. Our study supports use of a 0.5 cm step size for prostate implants.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA