BACKGROUND: Imaging, in radiotherapy, has become a routine tool for repositioning of the target volume at each session. The repositioning precision, currently infracentimetric, evolves along with the irradiation techniques. This retrospective study aimed to identify practices and doses resulting from the use of high energy planar imaging (portal imaging) in daily practice. METHODS: A retrospective survey of portal images (PIs) was carried out over 10 years for 2,403 patients and for three linacs (1 Elekta SLi, 2 Varian Clinac) for postoperative mammary irradiations. Images were taken using a standardized number of monitor units (MU) for all patients. Due to the variable sensitivities of the detectors and the possibility of adjustment of the detector-patient distance, the number of MU were 3; 2 and 1 respectively, for Elekta SLi®, Clinac 600® and Clinac 2100®. Then, a representative cumulated dose was calculated in simplified reference conditions (5 cm depth, beam of 10 cm × 10 cm, 6 MV), considering the total number of images taken during the whole treatment course. The consistency between the representative doses and the actual absorbed doses received by the patients was verified by simulating a series of typical cases with the treatment plan dose calculation system. RESULTS: The delivered doses differ significantly between the three linacs. The mean representative dose values by complete treatment were 0.695; 0.241 and 0.216 Gy, respectively, for SLi, Clinac 600 and Clinac 2100. However, 15 patients were exposed to a dose >2 Gy with a maximum dose of 5.05 Gy. The simulated doses were very similar to the representative doses. CONCLUSIONS: A significant dose delivery was highlighted by this study. These representative doses are presently communicated weekly to the radiation oncologist for the radiation protection of their patients. Moreover, they should be taken into account in a possible study of long-term stochastic risks. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Imaging, in radiotherapy, has become a routine tool for repositioning of the target volume at each session. The repositioning precision, currently infracentimetric, evolves along with the irradiation techniques. This retrospective study aimed to identify practices and doses resulting from the use of high energy planar imaging (portal imaging) in daily practice. METHODS: A retrospective survey of portal images (PIs) was carried out over 10 years for 2,403 patients and for three linacs (1 Elekta SLi, 2 Varian Clinac) for postoperative mammary irradiations. Images were taken using a standardized number of monitor units (MU) for all patients. Due to the variable sensitivities of the detectors and the possibility of adjustment of the detector-patient distance, the number of MU were 3; 2 and 1 respectively, for Elekta SLi®, Clinac 600® and Clinac 2100®. Then, a representative cumulated dose was calculated in simplified reference conditions (5 cm depth, beam of 10 cm × 10 cm, 6 MV), considering the total number of images taken during the whole treatment course. The consistency between the representative doses and the actual absorbed doses received by the patients was verified by simulating a series of typical cases with the treatment plan dose calculation system. RESULTS: The delivered doses differ significantly between the three linacs. The mean representative dose values by complete treatment were 0.695; 0.241 and 0.216 Gy, respectively, for SLi, Clinac 600 and Clinac 2100. However, 15 patients were exposed to a dose >2 Gy with a maximum dose of 5.05 Gy. The simulated doses were very similar to the representative doses. CONCLUSIONS: A significant dose delivery was highlighted by this study. These representative doses are presently communicated weekly to the radiation oncologist for the radiation protection of their patients. Moreover, they should be taken into account in a possible study of long-term stochastic risks. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Portal imaging; breast cancer; dose; radiotherapy
Authors: Martin J Murphy; James Balter; Stephen Balter; Jose A BenComo; Indra J Das; Steve B Jiang; C M Ma; Gustavo H Olivera; Raymond F Rodebaugh; Kenneth J Ruchala; Hiroki Shirato; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: George X Ding; Parham Alaei; Bruce Curran; Ryan Flynn; Michael Gossman; T Rock Mackie; Moyed Miften; Richard Morin; X George Xu; Timothy C Zhu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-03-24 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Arthur J Olch; Mark Geurts; Bruce Thomadsen; Robin Famiglietti; Eric L Chang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: D Verellen; W De Neve; F Van den Heuvel; M Coghe; O Louis; G Storme Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1993-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038