ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate critical aspects and effectiveness of in vivo dosimetry (IVD) tests obtained by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in a multicenter and multisystem context. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight centers with three commercial systems-SoftDiso (SD, Best Medical Italy, Chianciano, Italy), Dosimetry Check (DC, Math Resolution, LCC), and PerFRACTION (PF, Sun Nuclear Corporation, SNC, Melbourne, FL)-collected IVD results for a total of 2002 patients and 32,276 tests. Data are summarized for IVD software, radiotherapy technique, and anatomical site. Every center reported the number of patients and tests analyzed, and the percentage of tests outside of the tolerance level (OTL%). OTL% was categorized as being due to incorrect patient setup, incorrect use of immobilization devices, incorrect dose computation, anatomical variations, and unknown causes. RESULTS: The three systems use different approaches and customized alert indices, based on local protocols. For Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) treatments OTL% mean values were up to 8.9% for SD, 18.0% for DC, and 16.0% for PF. Errors due to "anatomical variations" for head and neck were up to 9.0% for SD and DC and 8.0% for PF systems, while for abdomen and pelvis/prostate treatments were up to 9%, 17.0%, and 9.0% for SD, DC, and PF, respectively. The comparison among techniques gave 3% for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, 7.0% (range 4.7-8.9%) for VMAT, 10.4% (range 7.0-12.2%) for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and 13.2% (range 8.8-21.0%) for 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy. CONCLUSION: The results obtained with different IVD software and among centers were consistent and showed an acceptable homogeneity. EPID IVD was effective in intercepting important errors.
Subject(s)
In Vivo Dosimetry/methods , Humans , Radiosurgery , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , SoftwareABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to evaluate hippocampal irradiation in patients treated with fractionated stereotactic brain radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective hippocampal dosimetric analysis performed on 22 patients with one to four brain metastases treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy using volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy. Original plans did not include hippocampus as avoidance structure in optimization criteria; hippocampus was retrospectively delineated on magnetic resonance coregistered with planning CT and using as reference the RTOG 0933 atlas. Hippocampus was defined both as a single and as pair organ. Constraints analysed were: Dmax<16Gy, D40%<7.3Gy, D100%=Dmin<9Gy. Assuming a α/ß ratio of 2Gy, biologically equivalent dose in 2Gy fractions was calculated. Hippocampal-sparing plans were developed in cases where hippocampal constraints were not respected in the original plan. RESULTS: Among constraints analysed Dmax and D40% have been exceeded in ten out of 22 cases. The constraints were not respected in patients with more than one metastatic lesion and in three patients with only one lesion. Considering all exceeded constraints values in non-hippocampal sparing plans, the 50% of them was respected after replanning. No significant differences were found among conformity and homogeneity index between non-hippocampal sparing and hippocampal sparing plans. CONCLUSION: Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy hippocampal sparing plans significantly decreases dose to hippocampus assuring an equal target coverage and organs at risk avoiding.
