Literature DB >> 24784375

Helical tomotherapy with dynamic running-start-stop delivery compared to conventional tomotherapy delivery.

Yi Rong1, Yu Chen2, Lu Shang3, Li Zuo4, Weiguo Lu2, Quan Chen5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Despite superior target dose uniformity, helical tomotherapy(®) (HT) may involve a trade-off between longitudinal dose conformity and beam-on time (BOT), due to the limitation of only three available jaw sizes with the conventional HT (1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 cm). The recently introduced dynamic running-start-stop (RSS) delivery allows smaller jaw opening at the superior and inferior ends of the target when a sharp penumbra is needed. This study compared the dosimetric performance of RSS delivery with the fixed jaw HT delivery.
METHODS: Twenty patient cases were selected and deidentified prior to treatment planning, including 16 common clinical cases (brain, head and neck (HN), lung, and prostate) and four special cases of whole brain with hippocampus avoidance (WBHA) that require a high degree of dose modulation. HT plans were generated for common clinical cases using the fixed 2.5 cm jaw width (HT2.5) and WBHA cases using 1.0 cm (HT1.0). The jaw widths for RSS were preset with a larger size (RSS5.0 vs HT2.5 and RSS2.5 vs HT1.0). Both delivery techniques were planned based on identical contours, prescriptions, and planning objectives. Dose indices for targets and critical organs were compared using dose-volume histograms, BOT, and monitor units.
RESULTS: The average BOT was reduced from 4.8 min with HT2.5 to 2.5 min with RSS5.0. Target dose homogeneity with RSS5.0 was shown comparable to HT2.5 for common clinical sites. Superior normal tissue sparing was observed in RSS5.0 for optic nerves and optic chiasm in brain and HN cases. RSS5.0 demonstrated improved dose sparing for cord and esophagus in lung cases, as well as penile bulb in prostate cases. The mean body dose was comparable for both techniques. For the WBHA cases, the target homogeneity was significantly degraded in RSS2.5 without distinct dose sparing for hippocampus, compared to HT1.0.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the fixed jaw HT delivery, RSS combined with a larger jaw width provides faster treatment delivery and improved cranial-caudal target dose conformity. The target coverage achieved by RSS with a large jaw width is comparable to the fixed jaw HT delivery for common cancer sites, but may deteriorate for cases where complex geometry is present in the middle part of the target.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24784375     DOI: 10.1118/1.4870987

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


  11 in total

1.  Dosimetric comparison of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy for postoperative gastric cancer patients.

Authors:  Cem Onal; Yemliha Dölek; Berna Akkuş Yıldırım
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  Evaluation of the optimal combinations of modulation factor and pitch for Helical TomoTherapy plans made with TomoEdge using Pareto optimal fronts.

Authors:  Geert De Kerf; Dirk Van Gestel; Lobke Mommaerts; Danielle Van den Weyngaert; Dirk Verellen
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 3.481

3.  Dosimetric evaluation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiotherapy.

Authors:  Yi Rong; Josh Evans; Meng Xu-Welliver; Cadron Pickett; Guang Jia; Quan Chen; Li Zuo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Dosimetric verification and quality assurance of running-start-stop (RSS) delivery in tomotherapy.

Authors:  Francis Kar-Ho Lee; Simon Kar-Yiu Chan; Ricky Ming-Chun Chau
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Analysis of modulation factor to shorten the delivery time in helical tomotherapy.

Authors:  Hidetoshi Shimizu; Koji Sasaki; Hiroyuki Tachibana; Natsuo Tomita; Chiyoko Makita; Kuniyasu Nakashima; Kazushi Yokoi; Takashi Kubota; Manabu Yoshimoto; Tohru Iwata; Takeshi Kodaira
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Converting Treatment Plans From Helical Tomotherapy to L-Shape Linac: Clinical Workflow and Dosimetric Evaluation.

Authors:  Zilong Yuan; Chithra Kumaran Nair; Stanley H Benedict; Richard K Valicenti; Shyam Rao; Ruben C Fragoso; Cari Wright; Jianfeng Qiu; Yi Rong
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-01-01

7.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus tomotherapy for late T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Qian Chen; Lingwei Tang; Zhe Zhu; Liangfang Shen; Shan Li
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 5.738

8.  Fast Helical Tomotherapy in a head and neck cancer planning study: is time priceless?

Authors:  Dirk Van Gestel; Geert De Kerf; Kristien Wouters; Wouter Crijns; Jan B Vermorken; Vincent Gregoire; Dirk Verellen
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor.

Authors:  Hidetoshi Shimizu; Koji Sasaki; Takashi Kubota; Hiroshi Fukuma; Takahiro Aoyama; Tohru Iwata; Hiroyuki Tachibana; Takeshi Kodaira
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 2.724

10.  Dosimetric Comparisons of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Tomotherapy for Early T-Stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Authors:  Shan Li; Qin Zhou; Liang-Fang Shen; Huan Li; Zhan-Zhan Li; Zhen Yang; Ming-Jun Lei; Xiao-Yu Yang; Zi-Jian Zhang; Yong-Mei Hu; Ze-Fu Jin; Gui Liu; Zhi-Ping Lv; Xin-Qiong Huang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.