Literature DB >> 30241752

Tomotherapy treatment site specific planning using statistical process control.

Diana Binny1, Craig M Lancaster2, Mikel Byrne3, Tanya Kairn4, Jamie V Trapp5, Scott B Crowe4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study investigated planned MLC distribution and treatment region specific plan parameters to recommend optimal delivery parameters based on statistical process techniques.
METHODS: A cohort of 28 head and neck, 19 pelvic and 23 brain pre-treatment plans were delivered on a helical tomotherapy system using 2.5 cm field width. Parameters such as gantry period, leaf open time (LOT), actual modulation factor, LOT sonogram, treatment duration and couch travel were investigated to derive optimal range for plans that passed acceptable delivery quality assurance. The results were compared against vendor recommendations and previous publications.
RESULTS: No correlation was observed between vendor recommended gantry period and percentage of minimum leaf open times. The range of gantry period (min-max) observed was 16-21 s for head and neck, 15-22 s for pelvis and 13-18 s for brain plans respectively. It was also noted that the highest percentage (average (X-) ± SD) of leaf open times for a minimum time of 100 ms was seen for brain plans (53.9 ± 9.2%) compared to its corresponding head and neck (34.5 ± 4.2%) and pelvic (32.0 ± 9.4%) plans respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We have proposed that treatment site specific delivery parameters be used during planning that are based on the treatment centre and have detailed recommendations and limitations for the studied cohort. This may enable to improve efficiency of treatment deliveries by reducing inaccuracies in MLC distribution. Crown
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Leaf latency; Leaf open time; Statistical process control; Treatment delivery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30241752     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.08.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med        ISSN: 1120-1797            Impact factor:   2.685


  3 in total

1.  On the complexity of helical tomotherapy treatment plans.

Authors:  Tania Santos; Tiago Ventura; Josefina Mateus; Miguel Capela; Maria do Carmo Lopes
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 2.102

2.  Statistical Analysis of Treatment Planning Parameters for Prediction of Delivery Quality Assurance Failure for Helical Tomotherapy.

Authors:  Kyung Hwan Chang; Young Hyun Lee; Byung Hun Park; Min Cheol Han; Jihun Kim; Hojin Kim; Min-Seok Cho; Hyokyeong Kang; Ho Lee; Dong Wook Kim; Kwangwoo Park; Jaeho Cho; Yong Bae Kim; Jin Sung Kim; Chae-Seon Hong
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec

3.  Analysis of clinical patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance with the new helical tomotherapy platform, following the AAPM TG-218 report.

Authors:  Marco Fusella; Samuele Cavinato; Alessandra Germani; Marta Paiusco; Nicola Pivato; Marco Andrea Rossato; Anthony Scott; Alessandro Scaggion
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 3.481

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.