Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Biomed Phys Eng Express ; 8(6)2022 09 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1992047

ABSTRACT

Objective.The goal of this study was to use Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements to investigate the dosimetric suitability of an interventional radiology (IR) c-arm fluoroscope to deliver low-dose radiotherapy to the lungs.Approach.A previously-validated MC model of an IR fluoroscope was used to calculate the dose distributions in a COVID-19-infected patient, 20 non-infected patients of varying sizes, and a postmortem subject. Dose distributions for PA, AP/PA, 3-field and 4-field treatments irradiating 95% of the lungs to a 0.5 Gy dose were calculated. An algorithm was created to calculate skin entrance dose as a function of patient thickness for treatment planning purposes. Treatments were experimentally validated in a postmortem subject by using implanted dosimeters to capture organ doses.Main results.Mean doses to the left/right lungs for the COVID-19 CT data were 1.2/1.3 Gy, 0.8/0.9 Gy, 0.8/0.8 Gy and 0.6/0.6 Gy for the PA, AP/PA, 3-field, and 4-field configurations, respectively. Skin dose toxicity was the highest probability for the PA and lowest for the 4-field configuration. Dose to the heart slightly exceeded the ICRP tolerance; all other organ doses were below published tolerances. The AP/PA configuration provided the best fit for entrance skin dose as a function of patient thickness (R2 = 0.8). The average dose difference between simulation and measurement in the postmortem subject was 5%.Significance.An IR fluoroscope should be capable of delivering low-dose radiotherapy to the lungs with tolerable collateral dose to nearby organs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted , COVID-19/radiotherapy , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Monte Carlo Method , Radiology, Interventional , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods
2.
Med Dosim ; 47(2): 173-176, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1983651

ABSTRACT

To evaluate the dosimetric differences for patients receiving a perirectal hydrogel spacer (PR-HS) using SpaceOAR undergoing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for localized prostate cancer with the CyberKnife VSI system. Gold fiducial markers and a PR-HS was inserted in 22 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed localized prostate cancer. For planning comparison, dosimetry from the clinical plans was compared against replans based on a simulated rectum volume designed to recreate a clinically appropriate spacer-less anatomy for each patient. Both sets were planned to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using the treatment planning system associated with the CyberKnife VSI system. The aim was to ensure equivalent target coverage for both plans and to evaluate doses to the organs-at-risk (OARs): rectum, bladder and penile bulb. The median PR-HS implant volume was 11.2 cc (range 8.8 to 14.9 cc). The maximal median perirectal separation was 15.5 mm (10.5 to 20.7 mm). Statistically significant reductions were noted for the 3 OARs, with no statistically significant difference in planning target volumes or clinical target volume coverage. All rectal dose constraints were significantly improved in the PR-HS plans with a percentage dose difference of at least 24% (rectum V18.1Gy (%)) to 60.5% (rectum V36Gy (cc)). The bladder and penile bulb dose constraints parameters were also significantly improved: the bladder V37Gy was reduced by 17.1%, V18.1Gy was reduced by 4.2%; the penile bulb D50% was reduced by 7.7%. The use of PR-HS was able to significantly reduce planned dose to the rectum, bladder and penile bulb with SABR techniques associated with the CyberKnife VSI system.


Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Radiosurgery , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , Humans , Hydrogels , Male , Organs at Risk , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Radiosurgery/methods , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Rectum
3.
Radiography (Lond) ; 28(3): 746-750, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773717

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In response to advice from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (1) to reduce hospital visits during COVID-19, standard headrests were introduced for head and neck radiotherapy within Northern Centre for Cancer Care (NCCC). The standard headrest requires one mould room appointment compared to 3 appointments with customised headrests. METHODS: Two groups of 10 patients treated between December 2019 and June 2020 were retrospectively analysed by 1 observer. Groups were stratified according to age, sex and tumour site. One group had customised headrest and the other had standard headrest. Five hundred and forty seven cone beam computed tomography images were reviewed. A 6 Degree of Freedom match was performed then chin, shoulder and spine position were assessed using dosimetrist drawn structures. Structures out of the tolerance were recorded. A chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The out of tolerance chin position count recorded was 21 for customised headrest and 36 for standard headrest, p-value 0.046. The shoulder position count was 13 for customised headrest and 77 for standard headrest p-value <0.001. The spine position count was 3 for CHR and 21 for standard headrest, p-value <0.001. This means the headrests compared are not equivalent in terms of set up reproducibility. Overall the standard headrest group had 10 set-up re-scans and no set up re-scans were recorded in the customised headrest group. CONCLUSION: Fewer hospital visits with SHR reduce patient exposure to COVID-19. However, CHR provided a more reliable level of immobilisation in this study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The radiotherapy service will be reviewed in line with these findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Head , Humans , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies
4.
Radiat Oncol ; 17(1): 10, 2022 Jan 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1643167

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Low dose radiotherapy (LDRT) of whole lungs with photon beams is a novel method for treating COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to estimate cancer risks induced by lung LDRT for different radiotherapy delivery techniques. METHOD: Four different radiotherapy techniques, including 3D-conformal with anterior and posterior fields (3D-CRT AP-PA), 3D-conformal with 8 coplanar fields (3D-CRT 8 fields), eight fields intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy using 2 full arcs (VMAT) were planned on the CT images of 32 COVID-19 patients with the prescribed dose of 1 Gy to the lungs. Organ average and maximum doses, and PTV dose distribution indexes were compared between different techniques. The radiation-induced cancer incidence and cancer-specific mortality, and cardiac heart disease risks were estimated for the assessed techniques. RESULTS: In IMRT and VMAT techniques, heart (mean and max), breast (mean, and max), and stomach (mean) doses and also maximum dose in the body were significantly lower than the 3D-CRT techniques. The calculated conformity indexes were similar in all the techniques. However, the homogeneity indexes were lower (i.e., better) in intensity-modulated techniques (P < 0.03) with no significant differences between IMRT and VMAT plans. Lung cancer incident risks for all the delivery techniques were similar (P > 0.4). Cancer incidence and mortality risks for organs located closer to lungs like breast and stomach were higher in 3D-CRT techniques than IMRT or VMAT techniques (excess solid tumor cancer incidence risks for a 30 years man: 1.94 ± 0.22% Vs. 1.68 ± 0.17%; and women: 6.66 ± 0.81% Vs. 4.60 ± 0.43%: cancer mortality risks for 30 years men: 1.63 ± 0.19% Vs. 1.45 ± 0.15%; and women: 3.63 ± 0.44% Vs. 2.94 ± 0.23%). CONCLUSION: All the radiotherapy techniques had low cancer risks. However, the overall estimated risks induced by IMRT and VMAT radiotherapy techniques were lower than the 3D-CRT techniques and can be used clinically in younger patients or patients having greater concerns about radiation induced cancers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/radiotherapy , Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced/prevention & control , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted , Adult , Aged , Breast/radiation effects , COVID-19/pathology , Female , Heart/radiation effects , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Humans , Iran , Lung/pathology , Lung/radiation effects , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced/diagnosis , Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced/etiology , Organs at Risk/radiation effects , Pneumonia, Viral/radiotherapy , Prognosis , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiotherapy, Conformal/methods , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
5.
J Radiat Res ; 62(1): 163-171, 2021 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1003611

ABSTRACT

The immobilization of patients with a bite block (BB) carries the risk of interpersonal infection, particularly in the context of pandemics such as COVID-19. Here, we compared the intra-fractional patient setup error (intra-SE) with and without a BB during fractionated intracranial stereotactic irradiation (STI). Fifteen patients with brain metastases were immobilized using a BB without a medical mask, while 15 patients were immobilized without using a BB and with a medical mask. The intra-SEs in six directions (anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR), pitch, roll, and yaw) were calculated by using cone-beam computed tomography images acquired before and after the treatments. We analyzed a total of 53 and 67 treatment sessions for the with- and without-BB groups, respectively. A comparable absolute mean translational and rotational intra-SE was observed (P > 0.05) in the AP (0.19 vs 0.23 mm with- and without-BB, respectively), SI (0.30 vs 0.29 mm), LR (0.20 vs 0.29 mm), pitch (0.18 vs 0.27°), roll (0.23 vs 0.23°) and yaw (0.27 vs 22°) directions. The resultant planning target volume (PTV) margin to compensate for intra-SE was <1 mm. No statistically significant correlation was observed between the intra-SE and treatment times. A PTV margin of <1 mm was achieved even when patients were immobilized without a BB during STI dose delivery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cranial Irradiation , Dose Fractionation, Radiation , Immobilization/instrumentation , Masks/adverse effects , Pandemics , Patient Positioning/instrumentation , Radiosurgery , Radiotherapy Setup Errors , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brain Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Brain Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Brain Neoplasms/secondary , COVID-19/prevention & control , Equipment Design , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Retrospective Studies , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
6.
Technol Cancer Res Treat ; 19: 1533033820974021, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-983619

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: With the widespread prevalence of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), cancer patients are suggested to wear a surgical mask during radiation treatment. In this study, cone beam CT (CBCT) was used to investigate the effect of surgical mask on setup errors in head and neck radiotherapy. METHODS: A total of 91 patients with head and neck tumors were selected. CBCT was performed to localize target volume after patient set up. The images obtained by CBCT before treatment were automatically registered with CT images and manually fine-tuned. The setup errors of patients in 6 directions of Vrt, Lng, Lat, Pitch, Roll and Rotation were recorded. The patients were divided into groups according to whether they wore the surgical mask, the type of immobilization mask used and the location of the isocenter. The setup errors of patients were calculated. A t-test was performed to detect whether it was statistically significant. RESULTS: In the 4 groups, the standard deviation in the directions of Lng and Pitch of the with surgical mask group were all higher than that in the without surgical mask group. In the head-neck-shoulder mask group, the mean in the Lng direction of the with surgical mask group was larger than that of the without surgical mask group. In the lateral isocenter group, the mean in the Lng and Pitch directions of the with surgical mask group were larger than that of the without surgical mask group. The t-test results showed that there was significant difference in the setup error between the 2 groups (p = 0.043 and p = 0.013, respectively) only in the Lng and Pitch directions of the head-neck-shoulder mask group. In addition, the setup error of 6 patients with immobilization open masks exhibited no distinguished difference from that of the patients with regular immobilization masks. CONCLUSION: In the head and neck radiotherapy patients, the setup error was affected by wearing surgical mask. It is recommended that the immobilization open mask should be used when the patient cannot finish the whole treatment with a surgical mask.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Head and Neck Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Masks , Radiotherapy Setup Errors/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/methods , Female , Head and Neck Neoplasms/epidemiology , Humans , Immobilization/instrumentation , Immobilization/methods , Immobilization/statistics & numerical data , Male , Masks/adverse effects , Masks/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Radiation Oncology/methods , Radiation Oncology/standards , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/adverse effects , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/statistics & numerical data , Radiotherapy, Image-Guided/adverse effects , Radiotherapy, Image-Guided/methods , Radiotherapy, Image-Guided/statistics & numerical data , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Shoulder , Young Adult
7.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys ; 109(4): 1086-1095, 2021 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-921999

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess the use of machine learning methods and Mobius 3D (M3D) dose calculation software to reduce the number of physical ion chamber (IC) dose measurements required for patient-specific quality assurance during corona virus disease 2019. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this study, 1464 inversely planned treatments using Pinnacle or Raystation treatment planning software (TPS) were delivered using Elekta Versa HD and Varian Truebeam and Truebeam STx linear accelerators between June 2018 and November 2019. For each plan, an independent dose calculation was performed using M3D, and an absolute dose measurement was taken using a Pinpoint IC inside the Mobius phantom. The point dose differences between the TPS and M3D calculation and between TPS and IC measurements were calculated. Agreement between the TPS and IC was used to define the ground truth plan failure. To reduce the on-site personnel during the pandemic, 2 methods of receiver operating characteristic analysis (n = 1464) and machine learning (n = 603) were used to identify patient plans that would require physical dose measurements. RESULTS: In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, a predelivery M3D difference threshold of 3% identified plans that failed an IC measurement at a 4% threshold with 100% sensitivity and 76.3% specificity. This indicates that fewer than 25% of plans required a physical dose measurement. A threshold of 1% on a machine learning model was able to identify plans that failed an IC measurement at a 3% threshold with 100% sensitivity and 54.3% specificity, leading to fewer than 50% of plans that required a physical dose measurement. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to identify plans that are more likely to fail IC patient-specific quality assurance measurements before delivery. This possibly allows for a reduction of physical measurements taken, freeing up significant clinical resources and reducing the required amount of on-site personnel while maintaining patient safety.


Subject(s)
Machine Learning , ROC Curve , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Humans , Quality Assurance, Health Care
8.
Radiother Oncol ; 153: 289-295, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-857114

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective of this work is to evaluate the risk of carcinogenesis of low dose ionizing radiation therapy (LDRT), for treatment of immune-related pneumonia following COVID-19 infection, through the estimation of effective dose and the lifetime attributable risk of cancer (LAR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: LDRT treatment was planned in male and female computational phantoms. Equivalent doses in organs were estimated using both treatment planning system calculations and a peripheral dose model (based on ionization chamber measurements). Skin dose was estimated using radiochromic films. Later, effective dose and LAR were calculated following radiation protection procedures. RESULTS: Equivalent doses to organs per unit of prescription dose range from 10 mSv/cGy to 0.0051 mSv/cGy. Effective doses range from 204 mSv to 426 mSv, for prescription doses ranging from 50 cGy to 100 cGy. Total LAR for a prescription dose of 50 cGy ranges from 1.7 to 0.29% for male and from 4.9 to 0.54% for female, for ages ranging from 20 to 80 years old. CONCLUSIONS: The organs that mainly contribute to risk are lung and breast. Risk for out-of-field organs is low, less than 0.06 cases per 10000. Female LAR is on average 2.2 times that of a male of the same age. Effective doses are of the same order of magnitude as the higher-dose interventional radiology techniques. For a 60 year-old male, LAR is 8 times that from a cardiac CT, when prescription dose is 50 cGy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/radiotherapy , Carcinogenesis/radiation effects , Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced/epidemiology , Organs at Risk , Phantoms, Imaging , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL