ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to validate the Acuros BV dose calculation algorithm for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy superficial mold treatments in the absence of full scatter conditions and compare this with TG-43 dose calculations. We also investigate the impact of additional back scatter material (bolus) applied above surface molds to the dose distributions under the mold. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The absorbed dose at various depths was compared for simulations performed using either TG-43 or Acuros BV dose calculations. Parameter variations included treatment area, thickness of the bolus, and surface shape (flat or spherical). Film measurements were carried out in a flat phantom. RESULTS: Acuros BV calculations and film measurements agreed within 1.5% but were up to 15% lower than TG-43 dose calculations when no bolus was applied above the treatment catheters. The difference in dose at the prescription depth (1 cm below the central catheter) increased with increasing treatment area: 3.3% difference for a 3 × 3.5 cm2 source loading area, 7.4% for 8 × 9 cm2, and 13.4% for 18 × 19 cm2. The dose overestimation of the TG-43 model decreased when bolus was added above the treatment catheters. CONCLUSIONS: The TG-43 dosimetry formalism cannot model surface mold treatments in the absence of full scatter conditions within 5% for loading areas larger than approximately 5 × 5 cm2. The TG-43 model results in an overestimation of the delivered dose, which increases with treatment area. This confirms the need for model-based dose calculation algorithms as discussed in TG-186.
Subject(s)
Algorithms , Brachytherapy/instrumentation , Brachytherapy/methods , Radiotherapy Dosage , Skin Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Catheters , Humans , Monte Carlo Method , Radiometry/methods , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methodsABSTRACT
In 2010, the NCS (Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry) installed a subcommittee to develop guidelines for quality assurance and control for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. The report (published in 2015) has been written by Dutch medical physicists and has therefore, inevitably, a Dutch focus. This paper is a condensed version of these guidelines, the full report in English is freely available from the NCS website www.radiationdosimetry.org. After describing the transition from IMRT to VMAT, the paper addresses machine quality assurance (QA) and treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning for VMAT. The final section discusses patient specific QA issues such as the use of class solutions, measurement devices and dose evaluation methods.
Subject(s)
Algorithms , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Quality Assurance, Health Care/standards , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/standards , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/standards , Humans , Radiometry/methods , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methodsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To develop a treatment technique for craniospinal irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with improved dose homogeneity at the field junction(s), increased target volume conformity, and minimized dose to the organs at risk (OARs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients with high-risk medulloblastoma underwent CT simulation in supine position. For each patient, an IMRT plan with daily intrafractionally modulated junction(s) was generated, as well as a treatment plan based on conventional three-dimensional planning (3DCRT). A dose of 39.6 Gy in 22 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy was prescribed. Dose-volume parameters for target volumes and OARs were compared for the two techniques. RESULTS: The maximum dose with IMRT was <107% in all patients. V<95 and V>107 were <1 cm3 for IMRT compared with 3-9 cm3 for the craniospinal and 26-43 cm3 for the spinal-spinal junction with 3DCRT. These observations corresponded with a lower homogeneity index and a higher conformity index for the spinal planning target volume with IMRT. IMRT provided considerable sparing of acute and late reacting tissues. V75 for the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, and intestine was 81%, 81%, and 22% with 3DCRT versus 5%, 0%, and 1% with IMRT, respectively. V75 for the heart and thyroid was 42% and 32% vs. 0% with IMRT. CONCLUSION: IMRT with daily intrafractionally modulated junction results in a superior target coverage and junction homogeneity compared with 3DCRT. A significant dose reduction can be obtained for acute as well as late-reacting tissues.
