Literature DB >> 10643738

A comparison of 18-MV and 6-MV treatment plans using 3D dose calculation with and without heterogeneity correction.

M M Ellen1, K R Hogstrom, L A Miller, R C Erice, T A Buchholz.   

Abstract

Homogeneity of the dose distribution in irradiation of the intact breast for stage I and II cancers is an important factor, particularly for larger breasts. In the present work, we have studied dose homogeneity for 6- and 18-MV treatment plans in 10 patients, typically with larger breasts. For each patient, 6 3-dimensional (3D) dose distributions were calculated using patient computed tomography data and the ADAC Pinnacle3 treatment planning system. First, a dose distribution was calculated, assuming the patient was water, with the 6-MV beam parameters used to treat the patient. Second, the calculation was repeated using the actual patient anatomy. Comparison of these 2 distributions showed how patient heterogeneity affected dose. Third, individual beam weights were optimized, and the dose calculation was repeated. Each of these 3 dose calculations was repeated at 18 MV. Results showed that: (1) at 6 MV, the ratio of mean dose in the target volume calculated with heterogeneity considerations to that without was 1.014 +/- 0.006, and the ratio of the standard deviation of dose in the target volume was 0.919 +/- 0.042; (2) at 18 MV, the ratio of mean dose to the target volume calculated with heterogeneity considerations to that without was 1.001 +/- 0.005, and the ratio of the standard deviation of dose in the target volume was 1.15 +/- 0.09; and (3) the dose homogeneity, measured by the standard deviation of the dose distribution in the target volume, was 25% less for the 18-MV treatment plan for patients with breast volumes greater than 1600 cm3. We conclude that: (1) 3D, heterogeneity-corrected dose calculation is necessary to fairly evaluate any advantage of 18 MV over 6 MV; (2) excluding the dose buildup region, 18 MV produces a significantly more homogeneous dose distribution for breast volumes greater than 1600 cm3; and (3) when prescribing dose using heterogeneity-corrected dose distributions, dose prescriptions should be increased by 1.5% at 6 MV, but no increase is needed for 18 MV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10643738     DOI: 10.1016/s0958-3947(99)00022-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  2 in total

1.  Verification of tangential breast treatment dose calculations in a commercial 3D treatment planning system.

Authors:  C T Baird; G Starkschall; H H Liu; T A Buchholz; K R Hogstrom
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.102

2.  Corrections to traditional methods of verifying tangential-breast 3D monitor-unit calculations: use of an equivalent triangle to estimate effective fields.

Authors:  Karl L Prado; Steven M Kirsner; Rolly C Erice
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.102

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.