In vivo dosimetry in the field junction area for 3D-conformal radiation therapy in breast and head & neck cancer cases: A quality assurance study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of field junctioning planning techniques (monoisocentric and rotating couch technique) for 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). METHODS: In vivo dosimetry has been performed using thermo- luminescence dosimeters (TLDs) in 10 head and neck cancer patients (treated with monoisocentric technique) and 10 breast cancer patients (treated with rotating couch technique) irradiated with a 6 MV photon beam. Entrance dose measurements were performed in selected regions including the field junction area. RESULTS: The mean deviation between measured and expected dose in the region of junction was significantly higher in breast cases compared to head and neck irradiation (-2.8±15.4% and 0.2±8.2% respectively; Mann-Whitney U test: p=0.002). A comparison between lateral head and neck fields and tangential breast fields revealed that the latter was associated with larger dose discrepancies (-2.2 ± 4.6% vs -3.5 ± 5.7% respectively; Mann-Whitney U test: p=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate the superiority of monoisocentric technique compared to the rotating couch technique in terms of dose delivery accuracy for treatments with field junctioning planning techniques.

Utilizing a simple CT dosimetry phantom for the comprehension of the operational characteristics of CT AEC systems.

PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of the nested polymethylacrylate (PMMA) phantom (which is available in many CT facilities for CTDI measurements), as a tool for the presentation and comparison of the ways that two different CT automatic exposure control (AEC) systems respond to a phantom when various scan parameters and AEC protocols are modified. METHODS: By offsetting the two phantom's components (the head phantom and the body ring) half-way along their longitudinal axis, a phantom with three sections of different x-ray attenuation was created. Scan projection radiographs (SPRs) and helical scans of the three-section phantom were performed on a Toshiba Aquilion 64 and a Philips Brilliance 64 CT scanners, with different scan parameter selections [scan direction, pitch factor, slice thickness, and reconstruction interval (ST/RI), AEC protocol, and tube potential used for the SPRs]. The dose length product (DLP) values of each scan were recorded and the tube current (mA) values of the reconstructed CT images were plotted against the respective Z-axis positions on the phantom. Furthermore, measurements of the noise levels at the center of each phantom section were performed to assess the impact of mA modulation on image quality. RESULTS: The mA modulation patterns of the two CT scanners were very dissimilar. The mA variations were more pronounced for Aquilion 64, where changes in any of the aforementioned scan parameters affected both the mA modulations curves and DLP values. However, the noise levels were affected only by changes in pitch, ST/RI, and AEC protocol selections. For Brilliance 64, changes in pitch affected the mA modulation curves but not the DLP values, whereas only AEC protocol and SPR tube potential selection variations affected both the mA modulation curves and DLP values. The noise levels increased for smaller ST/RI, larger weight category AEC protocol, and larger SPR tube potential selection. CONCLUSIONS: The nested PMMA dosimetry phantom can be effectively utilized for the comprehension of CT AEC systems performance and the way that different scan conditions affect the mA modulation patterns, DLP values, and image noise. However, in depth analysis of the reasons why these two systems exhibited such different behaviors in response to the same phantom requires further investigation which is beyond the scope of this study.

The treatment outcome and radiation-induced toxicity for patients with head and neck carcinoma in the IMRT era: a systematic review with dosimetric and clinical parameters.

A descriptive analysis was made in terms of the related radiation induced acute and late mucositis and xerostomia along with survival and tumor control rates (significance level at 0.016, bonferroni correction), for irradiation in head and neck carcinomas with either 2D Radiation Therapy (2DRT) and 3D conformal (3DCRT) or Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). The mean score of grade > II xerostomia for IMRT versus 2-3D RT was 0.31 ± 0.23 and 0.56 ± 0.23, respectively (Mann Whitney, P < 0.001). The parotid-dose for IMRT versus 2-3D RT was 29.56 ± 5.45 and 50.73 ± 6.79, respectively (Mann Whitney, P = 0.016). The reported mean parotid-gland doses were significantly correlated with late xerostomia (spearman test, rho = 0.5013, P < 0.001). A trend was noted for the superiority of IMRT concerning the acute oral mucositis. The 3-year overall survival for either IMRT or 2-3DRT was 89.5% and 82.7%, respectively (P = 0.026, Kruskal-Wallis test). The mean 3-year locoregional control rate was 83.6% (range: 70-97%) and 74.4 (range: 61-82%), respectively (P = 0.025, Kruskal-Wallis). In conclusion, no significant differences in terms of locoregional control, overall survival and acute mucositis could be noted, while late xerostomia is definitely higher in 2-3D RT versus IMRT. Patients with head and neck carcinoma should be referred preferably to IMRT techniques.

A comprehensive method for calculating patient effective dose and other dosimetric quantities from CT DICOM images.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present a method for the calculation of effective dose using the DICOM header information of CT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using specialized software, the DICOM data were automatically extracted into a spreadsheet containing embedded functions for calculating effective dose. These data were used to calculate the dose-length product (DLP) fraction that corresponds to each image, and the respective effective dose was obtained by multiplying the image DLP by a conversion coefficient that was automatically selected depending on the CT scanner, the tube potential, and the anatomic position to which each image corresponded. The total effective dose was calculated as the sum of effective doses of all images plus the contribution of overscan. The conversion coefficient tables were derived using dosimetry calculator software for both the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 60 and ICRP 103 organ-weighting schemes. This method was applied for 90 chest, abdomen-pelvis, and chest-abdomen-pelvis examinations performed in three different MDCT scanners. RESULTS: The DLP values calculated with this method were in good agreement with those calculated by the CT scanners' software. The effective dose values calculated using the ICRP 103 conversion coefficient compared with those calculated using the ICRP 60 conversion coefficient were roughly equal for the chest-abdomen-pelvis examinations, smaller for the abdomen-pelvis examinations, and larger for the chest examinations. The applicability of this method for estimating organ doses was also explored. CONCLUSION: With this method, all patient dose-related quantities, such as the DLP, effective dose, and individual organ doses, can be calculated.