ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To present our methods and results regarding the modeling of a carbon fiber couch (Varian Exact IGRT) in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS). METHODS: Three geometrical-models (GMs) were implemented in the TPS to represent the three different regions of the couch (thick, medium and thin). The materials and densities of each GM component were tuned to maximize the agreement between measured and calculated attenuations. Moreover, a couch computed-tomography (CT) scan was acquired and dosimetrically compared with the GMs. For validation, plan-specific quality assurance (QA) of VMAT plans (TG-119 cases, 5 prostate and 5 H&N clinical cases) was performed by comparing measured dose distributions with doses computed with and without including the GMs in the TPS. RESULTS: Couch attenuations up to 4.3% were measured (energy: 6MV). Compared to couch CT, GMs could be modified to optimize the agreement with measurements and reduce dependence on the dose grid resolution. For both couch CT and GM, absolute deviations between measured and calculated attenuations were within 1.0%. When including the GMs in plan-specific QA, global 2%/2mm γ-pass rates showed an average improvement of 4.8% (p-value<0.001, max +18.6%). The couch reduced the mean dose to targets by up to 2.4% of the prescribed dose for prostate cases and up to 1.4% for H&N cases. CONCLUSIONS: RayStation accurately considers the implemented couch GMs replicating measured attenuations within an uncertainty of 1.0%. Materials and densities are proposed for the Varian Exact IGRT couch. The results obtained justify introducing couch GMs in clinical routine.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Radiometry/methods , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Carbon/chemistry , Carbon Fiber , Humans , Male , Models, Statistical , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Phantoms, Imaging , Radiotherapy Dosage , Reproducibility of Results , Software , Tomography, X-Ray ComputedABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the probability of late cardiac mortality resulting from left breast irradiation planned with tangential fields and to compare this probability between the wedged beam and field-in-field (FIF) techniques and to investigate whether some geometric/dosimetric indicators can be determined to estimate the cardiac mortality probability before treatment begins. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 30 patients, differential dose-volume histograms were calculated for the wedged beam and FIF plans, and the corresponding cardiac mortality probabilities were determined using the relative seriality model. As a comparative index of the dose distribution uniformity, the planning target volume (PTV) percentages involved in 97-103% of prescribed dose were determined for the two techniques. Three geometric parameters were measured for each patient: the maximal length, indicates how much the heart contours were displaced toward the PTV, the angle subtended at the center of the computed tomography slice by the PTV contour, and the thorax width/thickness ratio. RESULTS: Evaluating the differential dose-volume histograms showed that the gain in uniformity between the two techniques was about 1.5. With the FIF technique, the mean dose sparing for the heart, the left anterior descending coronary artery, and the lung was 15% (2.5 Gy vs. 2.2 Gy), 21% (11.3 Gy vs. 9.0 Gy), and 42% (8.0 Gy vs. 4.6 Gy) respectively, compared with the wedged beam technique. Also, the cardiac mortality probability decreased by 40% (from 0.9% to 0.5%). Three geometric parameters, the maximal length, angle subtended at the center of the computed tomography slice by the PTV contour, and thorax width/thickness ratio, were the determining factors (p = .06 for FIF, and p = .10 for wedged beam) for evaluating the cardiac mortality probability. CONCLUSION: The FIF technique seemed to yield a lower cardiac mortality probability than the conventional wedged beam technique. However, although our study demonstrated that FIF technique improved the dose coverage of the PTV, the restricted number of patients enrolled and the short follow-up did not allow us to evaluate and compare the breast cancer survival rates of the patients.
