| Literature DB >> 34804193 |
Xiaoyun Ma1, Mengling Zhang1, Wanbin Meng1, Xiaoli Lu1, Ziheng Wang1, Yanshan Zhang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The dose distribution of heavy ions at the edge of the target region will have a steep decay during radiotherapy, which can better protect the surrounding organs at risk.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34804193 PMCID: PMC8601813 DOI: 10.1155/2021/4440877
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Dose decay data at the end edge of beam.
| Parameters of TPS | Dose decay percentage at the end edge of beam (at a specified distance: mm) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beam setup | Fractions | Dose/Fx Gy (RBE) | 1 mm | 2 mm | 3 mm | 4 mm | 5 mm | 10 mm | 15 mm | 20 mm |
| Single direction beam | 20 | 3 | 86.43% | 66.10% | 45.78% | 25.46% | 18.84% | 16.95% | 15.51% | 14.13% |
| 15 | 4 | 81.81% | 61.87% | 41.93% | 24.20% | 19.95% | 17.98% | 16.49% | 15.03% | |
| 10 | 6 | 91.60% | 72.17% | 52.73% | 33.29% | 22.52% | 20.20% | 18.52% | 16.94% | |
| 6 | 10 | 84.22% | 65.69% | 47.16% | 29.81% | 25.43% | 23.07% | 21.24% | 19.45% | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Two-beam irradiation in opposite direction | 20 | 3 | 92.13% | 78.75% | 65.37% | 51.99% | 45.93% | 41.30% | 38.00% | 35.41% |
| 15 | 4 | 91.66% | 78.57% | 65.47% | 52.38% | 47.02% | 42.40% | 39.10% | 36.49% | |
| 10 | 6 | 93.27% | 80.69% | 68.11% | 55.53% | 49.14% | 44.52% | 41.18% | 38.52% | |
| 6 | 10 | 88.25% | 76.49% | 64.74% | 54.45% | 52.07% | 47.60% | 44.31% | 41.65% | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Horizontal and vertical (horizontal beam) | 20 | 3 | 90.88% | 76.16% | 61.43% | 46.91% | 36.62% | 9.93% | 7.34% | 6.68% |
| 15 | 4 | 91.36% | 76.79% | 62.22% | 47.66% | 37.40% | 10.27% | 7.63% | 6.94% | |
| 10 | 6 | 91.18% | 76.92% | 62.65% | 48.58% | 38.29% | 10.83% | 8.13% | 7.41% | |
| 6 | 10 | 86.01% | 72.03% | 58.04% | 45.04% | 36.75% | 11.45% | 9.03% | 8.24% | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Horizontal and vertical (vertical beam) | 20 | 3 | 86.30% | 70.17% | 54.04% | 37.96% | 30.34% | 10.16% | 7.54% | 6.88% |
| 15 | 4 | 83.90% | 67.80% | 51.70% | 35.76% | 29.88% | 10.34% | 7.83% | 7.16% | |
| 10 | 6 | 85.38% | 69.57% | 53.77% | 38.71% | 31.18% | 10.96% | 8.31% | 7.60% | |
| 6 | 10 | 84.35% | 68.70% | 53.06% | 38.22% | 32.06% | 11.88% | 9.24% | 7.62% | |
Figure 1Comparison of dose decay curves under different beam setup modes. The plans of 4 Gy (RBE) per fraction in the TPS were selected to compare the dose decay curves of different beam setup modes. Multiple heavy ion treatment plans with single beam irradiation, two-beam irradiation in opposite direction, and two-beam orthogonal irradiation under common segmentation conditions were designed in a homogeneous water phantom.
Figure 2Dose decay curves in different fractionations (single beam irradiation). Multiple heavy ion treatment plans with single beam irradiation, two-beam irradiation in opposite direction, and two-beam orthogonal irradiation under common segmentation conditions were designed in a homogeneous water phantom.
Figure 3Dose decay curves in different fractionations (two-beam irradiation in opposite direction). Multiple heavy ion treatment plans with two-beam irradiation in opposite direction under common segmentation conditions were designed in a homogeneous water phantom.
Figure 4Dose decay curves in different fractionations (two-beam orthogonal irradiation). Multiple heavy ion treatment plans with two-beam orthogonal irradiation under common segmentation conditions were designed in a homogeneous water phantom.