C L Hector1, S Webb, P M Evans. 1. Joint Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A method has been developed to enable a comparison to be made between the effects of movement on conventional tangential breast treatments and intensity-modulated treatments delivered using compensators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effects of set-up error and organ motion were studied for a set of six patients. Images were taken of these patients over the course of their treatment and conventional wedged and compensated treatment plans were designed for each. Dose-volume statistics were used to evaluate each of the treatment plans by examining the volume outside the dose range 95-105%. To assess the effects of movement alone, the volume change from day 1 was also calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-six estimated CT-sets were available for evaluation. Measurements of breast volume showed the volume to increase to a peak between fraction 4 and 8 and then decrease back below the initial volume. The standard treatment was found to yield 29/36 plans (81%) with greater than 5% volume outside the dose range 95-105%. For the compensated plans this dropped to 11/36 plans (31%). The analysis of the volume changes from day 1 showed that for both standard and compensated treatments 7/30 plans (23%) had an increase in volume outside the dose range 95-105% of greater than 5% of the total planning target volume. CONCLUSIONS: The compensated treatment is more susceptible to patient movement. However, the actual volume of tissue outside 95-105% dose is less when compared to standard treatment implying the compensated treatment is still superior.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A method has been developed to enable a comparison to be made between the effects of movement on conventional tangential breast treatments and intensity-modulated treatments delivered using compensators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effects of set-up error and organ motion were studied for a set of six patients. Images were taken of these patients over the course of their treatment and conventional wedged and compensated treatment plans were designed for each. Dose-volume statistics were used to evaluate each of the treatment plans by examining the volume outside the dose range 95-105%. To assess the effects of movement alone, the volume change from day 1 was also calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-six estimated CT-sets were available for evaluation. Measurements of breast volume showed the volume to increase to a peak between fraction 4 and 8 and then decrease back below the initial volume. The standard treatment was found to yield 29/36 plans (81%) with greater than 5% volume outside the dose range 95-105%. For the compensated plans this dropped to 11/36 plans (31%). The analysis of the volume changes from day 1 showed that for both standard and compensated treatments 7/30 plans (23%) had an increase in volume outside the dose range 95-105% of greater than 5% of the total planning target volume. CONCLUSIONS: The compensated treatment is more susceptible to patient movement. However, the actual volume of tissue outside 95-105% dose is less when compared to standard treatment implying the compensated treatment is still superior.
Authors: Bongile Mzenda; Mir Hosseini-Ashrafi; Antony Palmer; Honghai Liu; David J Brown Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Sven Olberg; Olga Green; Bin Cai; Deshan Yang; Vivian Rodriguez; Hao Zhang; Jin Sung Kim; Parag J Parikh; Sasa Mutic; Justin C Park Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Kia Busch; Ludvig P Muren; Sara Thörnqvist; Andreas G Andersen; Jesper Pedersen; Lei Dong; Jørgen B B Petersen Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-19
Authors: Rudolf Klepper; Sebastian Höfel; Ulrike Botha; Peter Köhler; Felix Zwicker Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102