RESUMEN

PURPOSE: For whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery, computed tomography simulation (CTS) and irradiation are generally performed during free breathing. In treatment planning, there are three techniques: field-in-field (FIF), physical wedge (PW), and enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of respiratory motion on doses for these three irradiation techniques. METHODS: All doses were measured using an ionization chamber in a cylindrical phantom on a respiratory motion platform. Doses for each technique were measured with and without phantom motion. The dose without phantom motion was defined as the reference. The reference was compared to the dose with the phantom motion. The positions of the isocenter with respect to the ranges of phantom motion were set as exhale and intermediate. The phantom motion amplitude was set to 5 mm or 10 mm. The respiratory phase to initiate irradiation was varied as inhale, intermediate-inhale, exhale and intermediate-exhale. RESULTS: When the motion amplitude was 10 mm, the dose differences for the FIF, PW, and EDW techniques were 4.2%, 0.5%, and 0.8%, respectively, at the maximum. However, the dose difference for the FIF technique was -0.5% when the isocenter position was set to the intermediate phase of phantom motion. CONCLUSION: We found that the dose difference per fraction was reduced when the respiratory phase during CTS image acquisition was set to the intermediate phase. Meanwhile, the dose differences per fraction for the PW and EDW techniques were less affected by the respiratory motion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Widely used physical wedges in clinical radiotherapy lead to beam intensity attenuation as well as the beam hardening effect, which must be considered. Dynamic wedges devised to overcome the physical wedges (PWs) problems result in dosimetry complications due to jaw movement while the beam is on. This study was aimed to investigate the usability of physical wedge data instead of enhanced dynamic wedge due to the enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) dosimetry measurement hardships of Varian 2100CD in inhomogeneous phantom by Monte Carlo code as a reliable method in radiation dosimetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PW and EDW-equipped-linac head was simulated using BEAMnrc code. DOSXYZnrc was used for three-dimensional dosimetry calculation in the CIRS phantom. RESULTS: Based on the isodose curves, EDW generated a less scattered as well as lower penumbra width compared to the PW. The depth dose variations of PWs and EDWs were more in soft tissue than the lung tissue. Beam profiles of PW and EDW indicated good coincidence in all points, except for the heel area. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated that it is possible to apply PW data instead of EDW due to the dosimetry and commissioning hardships caused by EDW in inhomogeneous media.

RESUMEN

The aim of this study is to compare the physical wedge (PW) with enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) to determine the difference in the dose distribution affecting the treated breast and the contralateral breast, lungs, heart, esophagus, spine, and surrounding skin in the radiotherapy of breast cancer. Computed tomography (CT) data sets of 30 breast cancer patients were selected from the database for the study. The treatment plans which were executed with PW were re-planned with EDW without changing the beam parameters. Keeping the wedge angles same, the analytic anisotropic algorithm (AAA) with heterogeneity correction was used for dose calculation in all plans. The prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The dose- volume histogram (DVH) of the planning target volume (PTV) and critical structures of both PW and EDW plans were analyzed. The analysis showed that the maximum dose within the target volume is higher in EDW plan compared to PW plan. However the PTV conformity index (CI) remained the same in both plans. For all the critical structures, the EDW technique offered less dose compared to PW technique. The effect of volume of the contralateral breast on the dose to contralateral breast and the effect of volume of PTV breast for patients with carcinoma left breast on the dose to heart were studied and analyzed for the two wedges. No correlation between volumes and dose parameters was found for the two techniques. The number of monitor units to deliver a particular dose with EDW field is less than that of PW field due to change in wedge factor. As EDW produces less scattered dose to structures outside the treatment field, the risk of a second malignancy can be reduced with this technique.

RESUMEN

Junctions of fields are known to be susceptible to developing cold or hot spots in the presence of even small geometrical misalignments. Reduction of these dose inhomogeneities can be accomplished through decreasing the dose gradients in the penumbra, but currently it cannot be done for enhanced dynamic wedges (EDW). An MLC-based penumbra softener was developed in the developer mode of TrueBeam linacs to reduce dose gradients across the side border of EDWs. The movement of each leaf was individually synchronized with the movement of the dynamic Y jaw to soften the penumbra in the same manner along the entire field border, in spite of the presence of the dose gradient of the EDW. Junction homogeneity upon field misalignment for side-matched EDWs was examined with the MV imager. The fluence inhomogeneities were reduced from about 30% per mm of shift of the field borders for the conventional EDW to about 2% per mm for the softened-penumbra plan. The junction in a four-field monoisocentric breast plan delivered to the Rando phantom was assessed with film. The dose inhomogeneities across the junction in the superior-inferior direction were reduced from about 20% to 25% per mm for the conventional fields to about 5% per mm. The dose near the softened junction of the breast plan with no shifts did not deviate from the conventional plan by more than about 4%. The newly-developed softened-penumbra junction of EDW (and/or open) fields was shown to reduce sensitivity to misalignments without increasing complexity of the planning or delivery. This methodology needs to be adopted by the manufacturers for clinical use.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy of enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) models of adaptive convolution algorithm (ACA) in Pinnacle3 9.0 and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA),and pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithms in Eclipse7.3 treatment planning systems (TPS).MethodsTo evaluate the accuracy of the three algorithm models,we compared actual measurement values with TPS calculation values of EDW wedge factors under for different fields in which Varian-21EX 6 MV X-ray was applied,and also compared the actual dose distribution profile with that of TPS.ResultsThe deviations of EDW wedge factors of symmetry fields and asymmetric fields are within 2.8％ and 19.4％ for ACA in Pinnacle3 9.0.Meanwhile,the deviations are 1.0％ and 2.0％ for AAA,1.2％ and 3.0％ for PBC in Eclipse7.3.The deviations between measurement and calculation of all fields profile for ACA is within 3％ and within 2.7％ for AAA within 4.0％ for PBC in wedge direction.For the dose distributions,we evaluated the pass rates of three algorithms using gamma analysis.The gamma pass rates among all the three algorithms in symmetry and asymmetric fields are above 87％ and 85％ respectively.After the removal of the penumbra zone,the pass rates among all the three algorithms are above 96％ in symmetry fields,and above 95％ in asymmetric fields,respectively.Conclusions AAA and PBC algorithms in symmetric and asymmetric fields can meet the need of clinical applications.While,wedge factor of ACA should not be used in clinical due to its greater error in asymmetric fields.

RESUMEN

The use of megavoltage X-ray sources of radiation, with their skin-sparing qualities in radiation therapy, has been proved useful in relieving patient discomfort and allowing higher tumor doses to be given with fewer restrictions due to radiation effects in the skin. The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric characteristics of a physical and enhanced dynamic wedge from a dual-energy (6 and 18 MV) linear accelerator such as surfaces doses with different source to surface distances (SSD), half value layer (HVL) in water and peripheral doses for both available energies. At short SSD such as 85 cm, higher surface doses are produced by the lower wedges by the short wedge-to-skin distance. For physical wedged field, at heel edge side HVL value was high (17 cm) compared with the measured that of EDW (15.1 cm). It was noticed that, the HVL variation across the beam was significantly higher for 6 MV X-rays than for 18 MV X-rays. The lower wedge has the maximum variation of peripheral dose compared to other wedges. The three wedge systems discussed in this work possess vastly different dosimetric characteristics. These differences will have a direct impact on the choice of the wedge system to be used for a particular treatment. Complete knowledge of the dosimetric characterisitics, including the surface and peripheral doses, is crucial in proper choice of particular wedge systems in clinical use.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Wedge filters can be used as missing tissue compensators or wedge pairs to alter the shape of isodose curves so that two beams can be angled with a small hinge angle at a target volume without creating a hotspot. AIM: In this study the dosimetric properties of Varian Enhanced Dynamic Wedge (EDW) and physical wedges (PW) were analyzed and compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ionometric measurements of open field output factor, physical wedge output factor, physical wedge factor and EDW factor for photon beams were carried out. A 3D scanning water phantom was used to scan depth dose and profiles for open and PW fields. The 2D ionization matrix was used to measure profiles of physical and EDW wedges. The isodose curves of physical and EDW angles were obtained using a therapy verification film. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The PW output factors of photons were compared with the open field output factors. The physical and EDW factors were compared. The difference in percentage depth dose for open and PW fields was observed for both photon beams. The measured isodose plots for physical and EDW were compared. CONCLUSION: The wedge field output factor increases with field size and wedge angle compared to that of the open field output factor. The number of MU to deliver a particular dose with the EDW field is less than that of the PW field due to a change in wedge factor. The dosimetric characteristics, like profile and isodose of EDW, closely match with that of the PW.

RESUMEN

This study was designed to investigate variation in Varian's Physical and Enhanced Dynamic Wedge Factors (WF) as a function of depth and field size. The profiles for physical wedges (PWs) and enhanced dynamic wedges (EDWs) were also measured using LDA-99 array and compared for confirmation of EDW angles at different depths and field sizes. WF measurements were performed in water phantom using cylindrical 0.66 cc ionization chamber. WF was measured by taking the ratio of wedge and open field ionization data. A normalized wedge factor (NWF) was introduced to circumvent large differences between wedge factors for different wedge angles. A strong linear dependence of PW Factor (PWF) with depth was observed. Maximum variation of 8.9% and 4.1% was observed for 60 degrees PW with depth at 6 and 15 MV beams respectively. The variation in EDW Factor (EDWF) with depth was almost negligible and less than two per cent. The highest variation in PWF as a function of field size was 4.1% and 3.4% for thicker wedge (60 degrees ) at 6 and 15 MV beams respectively and decreases with decreasing wedge angle. EDWF shows strong field size dependence and significant variation was observed for all wedges at both photon energies. Differences in profiles between PW and EDW were observed on toe and heel sides. These differences were dominant for larger fields, shallow depths, thicker wedges and low energy beam. The study indicated that ignoring depth and field size dependence of WF may result in under/over dose to the patient especially doing manual point dose calculation.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced dynamic wedges (EDW) are known to increase drastically the radiation therapy treatment efficiency. This paper has the aim to compare linear array measurements of EDW with the calculations of treatment planning system (TPS) and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for 15 MV photon energy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The range of different field sizes and wedge angles (for 15 MV photon beam) were measured by the linear chamber array CA 24 in Blue water phantom. The measurement conditions were applied to the calculations of the commercial treatment planning system XIO CMS v.4.2.0 using convolution algorithm. EPID measurements were done on EPID-focus distance of 100 cm, and beam parameters being the same as for CA24 measurements. RESULTS: Both depth doses and profiles were measured. EDW linear array measurements of profiles to XIO CMS TPS calculation differ around 0.5%. Profiles in non-wedged direction and open field profiles practically do not differ. Percentage depth doses (PDDs) for all EDW measurements show the difference of not more than 0.2%, while the open field PDD is almost the same as EDW PDD. Wedge factors for 60 deg wedge angle were also examined, and the difference is up to 4%. EPID to linear array differs up to 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of EDW in radiation therapy treatments provides clinicians with an effective tool for the conformal radiotherapy treatment planning. If modelling of EDW beam in TPS is done correctly, a very good agreement between measurements and calculation is obtained, but EPID cannot be used for reference measurements.

RESUMEN

Objective To investigate the correction of manual monitor unit calculation for asymmetric fields using the Varian enhanced dynamic wedge.Methods Monitor unit (MU) was calculated when the field sizes ranged from 6 cm × 6 cm to 20 cm × 20 cm at a depth of 5 cm using Varian Eclipse and both 6 MV and 10 MV X-rays data from Varian Clinac 23EX for all seven available EDW angles,including 10°15°,20°,25°,30°,45°and 60° The field size was kept fixed,and the distance between geometry center of field and isocenter was increased in increments of 1 cm,ranging from -9 cm to 4 cm.When the field size was the same,the correction factor was defined as the ratio of MU calculated for asymmetric field to monitor unit calculated for symmetric field.To ensure the correction factors obtained above could be used in routine manual calculation for EDW fields,measurements were made at a depth of 5 cm for 30°and 45°EDW with field size of 10 cm × 10 cm using 6 MV X-rays.Results The correction factor was independent of field dimensions,so the average value was adopted to make practical calculation.Without correction,the maximum error was 18% for 30°,and 30% for 45.After the results of monitor unit calculation were corrected,the largest error was - 1.8% and - 1.7% for 30° and 45°EDW,respectively.The magnitude of errors was within the clinical tolerance limits.Conclusions For asymmetric EDW fields,there is very large difference between the prescribed dose by manual calculation using EDW factors measured for symmetric fields and that delivered during treatment in order to obtain correct dose to reference point.The errors are decreased to be acceptable after correction.The method of correction is simple and independent of machine specific beam parameters.

RESUMEN

In order to evaluate the radio-protective advantage of an enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) over a physical wedge (PW), we measured peripheral doses scattered from both types of wedges using a 2D array of ion-chambers. A 2D array of ion-chambers was used for this purpose. In order to confirm the accuracy of the device, we first compared measured profiles of open fields with the profiles calculated by our commissioned treatment planning system. Then, we measured peripheral doses for the wedge angles of 15 degrees, 30 degrees, 45 degrees, and 60 degrees at source to surface distances (SSD) of 80 cm and 90 cm. The measured points were located at 0.5 cm depth from 1 cm to 5 cm outside of the field edge. In addition, the measurements were repeated by using thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD). The peripheral doses of EDW were (1.4% to 11.9%) lower than those of PW (2.5% to 12.4%). At 15 MV energy, the average peripheral doses of both wedges were 2.9% higher than those at 6MV energy. At a small SSD (80 cm vs. 90 cm), peripheral dose differences were more recognizable. The average peripheral doses to the heel direction were 0.9% lower than those to the toe direction. The results from the TLD measurements confirmed these findings with similar tendency. Dynamic wedges can reduce unnecessary scattered doses to normal tissues outside of the field edge in many clinical situations. Such an advantage is more profound in the treatment of steeper wedge angles, and shorter SSD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

For clinical implementation of Enhanced Dynamic Wedge (EDW), it is necessary to adequately analyze and commission its dosimetric properties in comparison to common physical metal wedge (MTW). This study was implemented with the essential measurements of parameters for clinical application, such as percentage depth dose, peripheral dose, surface dose, effective wedge factor, and wedge profile. In addition, through the comparison study of EDW with open and MTW, the analysis was performed to characterize the EDW. We also compared EDW dose profiles of measured values using chamber array 24 (CA24) with calculated values using radiation treatment planning system. PDDs of EDW showed good agreements between 0.2~0.5% of open beam, but 2% differences with MTW. In the result of the measurements of peripheral dose, it was shown that MTW was about 1% higher than open field and EDW. The surface doses of 60degrees MTW showed 10% lower than the others. We found that effective wedge factor of EDW had linear relationships according to Y jaw sizes and was independent of X jaw sizes and was independent of X jaw sizes and asymmetric Y jaw opening. In comparison with measured values and calculate values from Golden-STT based radiation treatment planning system (RTP system), it showed very good agreement within difference of 1%. It could be concluded that EDW is a very reliable and useful tool as a beam modification substitute for conventional MTW.

Asunto(s)