Literature DB >> 24099782

Analytical model for out-of-field dose in photon craniospinal irradiation.

Phillip J Taddei1, Wassim Jalbout, Rebecca M Howell, Nabil Khater, Fady Geara, Kenneth Homann, Wayne D Newhauser.   

Abstract

The prediction of late effects after radiotherapy in organs outside a treatment field requires accurate estimations of out-of-field dose. However, out-of-field dose is not calculated accurately by commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs). The purpose of this study was to develop and test an analytical model for out-of-field dose during craniospinal irradiation (CSI) from photon beams produced by a linear accelerator. In two separate evaluations of the model, we measured absorbed dose for a 6 MV CSI using thermoluminescent dosimeters placed throughout an anthropomorphic phantom and fit the measured data to an analytical model of absorbed dose versus distance outside of the composite field edge. These measurements were performed in two separate clinics-the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson) and the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC)-using the same phantom but different linear accelerators and TPSs commissioned for patient treatments. The measurement at AUBMC also included in-field locations. Measured dose values were compared to those predicted by TPSs and parameters were fit to the model in each setting. In each clinic, 95% of the measured data were contained within a factor of 0.2 and one root mean square deviation of the model-based values. The root mean square deviations of the mathematical model were 0.91 cGy Gy(-1) and 1.67 cGy Gy(-1) in the MD Anderson and AUBMC clinics, respectively. The TPS predictions agreed poorly with measurements in regions of sharp dose gradient, e.g., near the field edge. At distances greater than 1 cm from the field edge, the TPS underestimated the dose by an average of 14% ± 24% and 44% ± 19% in the MD Anderson and AUBMC clinics, respectively. The in-field measured dose values of the measurement at AUBMC matched the dose values calculated by the TPS to within 2%. Dose algorithms in TPSs systematically underestimated the actual out-of-field dose. Therefore, it is important to use an improved model based on measurements when estimating out-of-field dose. The model proposed in this study performed well for this purpose in two clinics and may be applicable in other clinics with similar treatment field configurations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24099782      PMCID: PMC4395760          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/21/7463

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


  56 in total

1.  Uncertainty analysis of absorbed dose calculations from thermoluminescence dosimeters.

Authors:  T H Kirby; W F Hanson; D A Johnston
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1992 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Out-of-field photon dose following removal of the flattening filter from a medical accelerator.

Authors:  Stephen F Kry; Oleg N Vassiliev; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Predicted risks of second malignant neoplasm incidence and mortality due to secondary neutrons in a girl and boy receiving proton craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Phillip J Taddei; Anita Mahajan; Dragan Mirkovic; Rui Zhang; Annelise Giebeler; David Kornguth; Mark Harvey; Shiao Woo; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Risk of second malignant neoplasm following proton versus intensity-modulated photon radiotherapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Phillip J Taddei; Rebecca M Howell; Sunil Krishnan; Sarah B Scarboro; Dragan Mirkovic; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Dose reconstruction for therapeutic and diagnostic radiation exposures: use in epidemiological studies.

Authors:  Marilyn Stovall; Rita Weathers; Catherine Kasper; Susan A Smith; Lois Travis; Elaine Ron; Ruth Kleinerman
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators.

Authors:  Eric E Klein; Joseph Hanley; John Bayouth; Fang-Fang Yin; William Simon; Sean Dresser; Christopher Serago; Francisco Aguirre; Lijun Ma; Bijan Arjomandy; Chihray Liu; Carlos Sandin; Todd Holmes
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Out-of-field dose measurements in a water phantom using different radiotherapy modalities.

Authors:  R Kaderka; D Schardt; M Durante; T Berger; U Ramm; J Licher; C La Tessa
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Monte Carlo study shows no significant difference in second cancer risk between 6- and 18-MV intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Stephen F Kry; Mohammad Salehpour; Uwe Titt; R Allen White; Marilyn Stovall; David Followill
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 6.280

9.  Advantage of protons compared to conventional X-ray or IMRT in the treatment of a pediatric patient with medulloblastoma.

Authors:  W H St Clair; J A Adams; M Bues; B C Fullerton; Sean La Shell; H M Kooy; J S Loeffler; N J Tarbell
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-03-01       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Proton versus photon radiotherapy for common pediatric brain tumors: comparison of models of dose characteristics and their relationship to cognitive function.

Authors:  Thomas E Merchant; Chia-Ho Hua; Hemant Shukla; Xiaofei Ying; Simeon Nill; Uwe Oelfke
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.167

View more
  14 in total

1.  A simple and fast physics-based analytical method to calculate therapeutic and stray doses from external beam, megavoltage x-ray therapy.

Authors:  Lydia J Jagetic; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  A comparative study on the risks of radiogenic second cancers and cardiac mortality in a set of pediatric medulloblastoma patients treated with photon or proton craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Rui Zhang; Rebecca M Howell; Phillip J Taddei; Annelise Giebeler; Anita Mahajan; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 6.280

3.  Measurement and modeling of out-of-field doses from various advanced post-mastectomy radiotherapy techniques.

Authors:  Jihyung Yoon; David Heins; Xiaodong Zhao; Mary Sanders; Rui Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 4.  The physics of proton therapy.

Authors:  Wayne D Newhauser; Rui Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Low- and middle-income countries can reduce risks of subsequent neoplasms by referring pediatric craniospinal cases to centralized proton treatment centers.

Authors:  Phillip J Taddei; Nabil Khater; Bassem Youssef; Rebecca M Howell; Wassim Jalbout; Rui Zhang; Fady B Geara; Annelise Giebeler; Anita Mahajan; Dragan Mirkovic; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2018-02-07

6.  ANALYTICAL MODEL TO ESTIMATE EQUIVALENT DOSE FROM INTERNAL NEUTRONS IN PROTON THERAPY OF CHILDREN WITH INTRACRANIAL TUMORS.

Authors:  Kyle J Gallagher; Phillip J Taddei
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 0.972

7.  A Novel Method to Extend a Partial-Body CT for the Reconstruction of Dose to Organs beyond the Scan Range.

Authors:  Gleb A Kuzmin; Matthew M Mille; Jae Won Jung; Choonik Lee; Christopher Pelletier; Gamal Akabani; Choonsik Lee
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 2.841

8.  Visualization of risk of radiogenic second cancer in the organs and tissues of the human body.

Authors:  Rui Zhang; Dragan Mirkovic; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 9.  A Review of Radiotherapy-Induced Late Effects Research after Advanced Technology Treatments.

Authors:  Wayne D Newhauser; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Reinhard Schulte; Choonsik Lee
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  Inter-Institutional Comparison of Personalized Risk Assessments for Second Malignant Neoplasms for a 13-Year-Old Girl Receiving Proton versus Photon Craniospinal Irradiation.

Authors:  Phillip J Taddei; Nabil Khater; Rui Zhang; Fady B Geara; Anita Mahajan; Wassim Jalbout; Angélica Pérez-Andújar; Bassem Youssef; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.