Literature DB >> 21364259

A closer look at RapidArc® radiosurgery plans using very small fields.

Lotte S Fog1, Jens F B Rasmussen, Marianne Aznar, Flemming Kjær-Kristoffersen, Ivan R Vogelius, Svend Aage Engelholm, Jens Peter Bangsgaard.   

Abstract

RapidArc® has become the treatment of choice for an increasing number of treatment sites in many clinics. The extensive use of multiple subfields in RapidArc® treatments presents unique challenges, especially for small targets treated in few fractions. In this work, very small static fields and subsequently RapidArc® and conventional plans for two targets (0.4 and 9.9 cm(3)) were investigated. Doses from static fields 1-4 MLC leaves (0.25-1.00 cm) wide, and larger fields with 1-4 MLC leaves closed in their centres, were measured using the portal dosimeter-based QA system EPIQA (v 1.3) and gafchromic film. RapidArc and conventional plans for two tumours were then measured using EPIQA, gafchromic EBT2 film and the phantom-based QA system Delta4. Eclipse 8.6 and 8.9, grid spacings of 1.25 and 2.50 mm and a Varian HD linac were used. For static fields one MLC leaf wide, the dose was underestimated by Eclipse by as much as 53% (v 8.6, 2.5 mm grid). Eclipse underestimated the dose downstream from a few MLC leaves closed in the centre of a large MLC field by as much as 30%. Eclipse consistently overestimated the width of the penumbra by about 100%. For the conventional plans, there was good agreement between the calculated and measured dose for the 9.9 cm(3) PTV, but a 10% underdose was observed for the 0.4 cm(3) PTV. For the RapidArc® plans, the measured dose for the 9.9 cm(3) PTV was in good agreement with the calculated one. However, for the 0.4 cm(3) PTV about 10% overdosing was detected (Eclipse v 8.6, 2.5 mm grid spacing). EPIQA data indicated that the measured dose profiles were overmodulated compared to the calculated one. The use of small subfields, typically a few MLC leaves wide, or larger fields with one or a few MLC leaves closed in its centre can result in significant errors in the dose calculation. The detector systems used vary in their ability to detect the discrepancies. Using a smaller grid size and newer version of Eclipse reduces the discrepancies observed in this work but does not eliminate them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21364259     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/6/020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  9 in total

1.  Penalization of aperture complexity in inversely planned volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  Kelly C Younge; Martha M Matuszak; Jean M Moran; Daniel L McShan; Benedick A Fraass; Donald A Roberts
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Stereotactic radiosurgery alone for multiple brain metastases? A review of clinical and technical issues.

Authors:  Arjun Sahgal; Mark Ruschin; Lijun Ma; Wilko Verbakel; David Larson; Paul D Brown
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 12.300

3.  A dosimetric phantom study of dose accuracy and build-up effects using IMRT and RapidArc in stereotactic irradiation of lung tumours.

Authors:  Jan Seppala; Sami Suilamo; Jarmo Kulmala; Pekka Mali; Heikki Minn
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Dosimetric characterization of Elekta stereotactic cones.

Authors:  Egor Borzov; Alexander Nevelsky; Raquel Bar-Deroma; Itzhak Orion
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 5.  Influence of the jaw tracking technique on the dose calculation accuracy of small field VMAT plans.

Authors:  Ans C C Swinnen; Michel C Öllers; Erik Roijen; Sebastiaan M Nijsten; Frank Verhaegen
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Limiting treatment plan complexity by applying a novel commercial tool.

Authors:  Alessandro Scaggion; Marco Fusella; Giancarmelo Agnello; Andrea Bettinelli; Nicola Pivato; Antonella Roggio; Marco A Rossato; Matteo Sepulcri; Marta Paiusco
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Highly efficient and sensitive patient-specific quality assurance for spot-scanned proton therapy.

Authors:  J E Johnson; C Beltran; H Wan Chan Tseung; D W Mundy; J J Kruse; T J Whitaker; M G Herman; K M Furutani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Impact of delivery characteristics on dose delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy for different treatment sites.

Authors:  Jiaqi Li; Xile Zhang; Jun Li; Rongtao Jiang; Jing Sui; Maria F Chan; Ruijie Yang
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 2.724

9.  Edge area metric complexity scoring of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.

Authors:  Julia Götstedt; Anna Bäck
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-03-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.