Literature DB >> 11797947

Delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a conventional multileaf collimator: comparison of dynamic and segmental methods.

C S Chui1, M F Chan, E Yorke, S Spirou, C C Ling.   

Abstract

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can be delivered with a conventional multileaf collimator (MLC), either in dynamic mode (DMLC) or in segmental mode (SMLC, also known as "step-and-shoot"). The advantage of DMLC is its ability to deliver the desired intensity profile produced by inverse planning with a high degree of fidelity. The SMLC method, on the other hand, resembles treatment with multiple static fields, and can be more easily verified. However, the use of SMLC requires that the desired profile be approximated by discrete levels of intensity, which may lead to degradation in the delivered dose distribution. Clearly, the results of SMLC delivery depend on the number of levels and the spatial resolution of the intensity distribution. In this work, we compare the DMLC method and the SMLC method employing different numbers of levels and different spatial resolutions. Three disease sites were studied: prostate, nasopharynx, and breast, with three cases for each. In general, a 5- to 10-level SMLC plan produced results comparable to that from a DMLC plan. The target coverage is improved by increasing the number of levels while critical organs are better protected with finer spatial resolutions. The beam-on-time (MUs) requirement for SMLC was approximately 20% less than DMLC, but the delivery time (in minutes) was about twice as long. Thus, the choice depends on many factors including machine capability, quality assurance, target coverage, critical organ protection, beam-on-time, delivery time, and other clinical considerations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11797947     DOI: 10.1118/1.1418018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  19 in total

1.  Comparison of total MU and segment areas in VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT plans.

Authors:  Motohiro Kawashima; Shuichi Ozawa; Akihiro Haga; Akira Sakumi; Chie Kurokawa; Satoru Sugimoto; Kumiko Karasawa; Keiichi Nakagawa; Keisuke Sasai
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-07-01

2.  To evaluate the accuracy of dynamic versus static IMRT delivery using portal dosimetry.

Authors:  S Clemente; R Caivano; M Cozzolino; G Califano; C Chiumento; A Fiorentino; V Fusco
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  IMRT and IGRT in head and neck cancer: Have we delivered what we promised?

Authors:  Gupta Tejpal; Agarwal Jaiprakash; Bannerjee Susovan; Sarbani Ghosh-Laskar; Vedang Murthy; Ashwini Budrukkar
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-11-21

4.  Treatment planning evaluation of sliding window and multiple static segments technique in intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Khalid Iqbal; Muhammad Isa; Saeed Ahmad Buzdar; Kent Aallen Gifford; Muhammad Afzal
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2012-12-21

5.  Evaluation of the Differences Between Measurements in Multiple Institutions and Calculation Modeled by Representative Beam Data in Prostate VMAT Plan.

Authors:  Hironao Goto; Hirokazu Mizuno; Yuichi Akino; Masaru Isono; Yoshihiro Tanaka; Norihisa Masai; Toshijiro Yamamoto; Masahiko Koizumi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

6.  Use of plan quality degradation to evaluate tradeoffs in delivery efficiency and clinical plan metrics arising from IMRT optimizer and sequencer compromises.

Authors:  Joel R Wilkie; Martha M Matuszak; Mary Feng; Jean M Moran; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Treatment planning and dosimetry of a multi-axis dynamic arc technique for prostate cancer: A comparison with IMRT.

Authors:  Kenshiro Shiraishi; Keiichi Nakagawa; Hideomi Yamashita; Naoki Nakamura; Masao Tago; Kuni Ohtomo
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  2006-01

Review 8.  New developments in radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: intensity-modulated radiation therapy and hypoxia targeting.

Authors:  Nancy Y Lee; Quynh-Thu Le
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.929

9.  Clinical and dosimetric evaluation of RapidArc versus standard sliding window IMRT in the treatment of head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Stéphanie Smet; Maarten Lambrecht; Bianca Vanstraelen; Sandra Nuyts
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 3.621

10.  Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx.

Authors:  K S Jothybasu; Amit Bahl; V Subramani; G K Rath; D N Sharma; P K Julka
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2009-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.