Evaluation of delivered monitor unit accuracy of gated step-and-shoot IMRT using a two-dimensional detector array.

PURPOSE: To overcome the problem of organ motion in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), gated IMRT is often used for the treatment of lung cancer. In this study, the authors investigated the accuracy of the delivered monitor units (MUs) from each segment during gated IMRT using a two-dimensional detector array for user-specific verification purpose. METHODS: The authors planned a 6 MV photon, seven-port step-and-shoot lung IMRT delivery. The respiration signals for gated IMRT delivery were obtained from the one-dimensional moving phantom using the real-time position management (RPM) system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The beams were delivered using a Clinac iX (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with the Millennium 120 MLC. The MatriXX (IBA Dosimetry GmbH, Germany) was validated through consistency and reproducibility tests as well as comparison with measurements from a Farmer-type ion chamber. The authors delivered beams with varying dose rates and duty cycles and analyzed the MatriXX data to evaluate MU delivery accuracy. RESULTS: There was quite good agreement between the planned segment MUs and the MUs computed from the MatriXX within +/- 2% error. The beam-on times computed from the MatriXX data were almost identical for all cases, and they matched well with the RPM beam-on and beam-off signals. A slight difference was observed between them, but it was less than 40 ms. The gated IMRT delivery demonstrated an MU delivery accuracy that was equivalent to ungated IMRT, and the delivered MUs with a gating signal agreed with the planned MUs within +/- 0.5 MU regardless of dose rate and duty cycle. CONCLUSIONS: The authors can conclude that gated IMRT is able to deliver an accurate dose to a patient during a procedure. The authors believe that the methodology and results can be transferred to other vendors' devices, particularly those that do not provide MLC log data for a verification purpose.

Biomechanical comparison of anterior and posterior stabilization methods in atlantoaxial instability.

OBJECT: The authors compared the biomechanical stability of two anterior fixation procedures--anterior C1-2 Harms plate/screw (AHPS) fixation and the anterior C1-2 transarticular screw (ATS) fixation; and two posterior fixation procedures--the posterior C-1 lateral mass combined with C-2 pedicle screw/rod (PLM/APSR) fixation and the posterior C1-2 transarticular screw (PTS) fixation after destabilization. METHODS: Sixteen human cervical spine specimens (Oc-C3) were tested in three-dimensional flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending motions after destabilization by using an atlantoaxial C1-2 instability model. In each loading mode, moments were applied to a maximum of 1.5 Nm, and the range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and elastic zone (EZ) were determined and values compared using the intact spine, the destabilized spine, and the postfixation spine. The AHPS method produced inferior biomechanical results in flexion-extension and lateral bending modes compared with the intact spine. The lateral bending NZ and ROM for this method differed significantly from the other three fixation techniques (p < 0.05), although statistically significant differences were not obtained for all other values of ROM and NZ for the other three procedures. The remaining three methods restored biomechanical stability and improved it over that of the intact spine. CONCLUSIONS: The PLM/APSR fixation method was found to have the highest biomechanical stiffness followed by PTS, ATS, and AHPS fixation. The PLM/APSR fixation and AATS methods can be considered good procedures for stabilizing the atlantoaxial joints, although specific fixation methods are determined by the proper clinical and radiological characteristics in each patient.