RESUMO
The purpose of this paper is to provide data on development of second primary cancers within or adjacent to tissue irradiated in the treatment of primary head and neck cancers using different techniques and modalities. Materials and methods: We selected five patients with HandN tumors located in base of the tongue for risk assessment. In order to examine the impact of choices of various planning techniques, numbers of beams and beam energy used in treatment plans - 7 and 9 field Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans using 6MV and 10 MV beam energies and a 6MV Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were planned. Out-of-field measurements for secondary photon doses for the treatment plans were measured using diode-dosimeters and solid water slabs. Differential dose-volume histograms (DVH) for all 5 patients and 5 techniques, were exported and used to calculate organ equivalent dose (OAR), excess absolute risk (EAR), and life-time attributable risk (LAR) for in-field organs. Results: For all treatment plans, the DVH showed clinically acceptable values; adequate clinical target coverage and dose constraints were met for all organs at risk. There was a clear advantage for the VMAT plan; it provided superior organ at risk (OAR) sparing and adequate target coverage. VMAT has relatively low monitor units at 0.93±0.034 times 7F6. The average percentage scattered to prescription doses for the five patients at 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 cm from the isocenter were 0.9212 ± 0.115, 0.2621 ± 0.080, 0.1617 ± 0.057, 0.0936 ± 0.026, 0.0296 ± 0.014, for VMAT. Conclusion: Organ-specific LAR was higher with VMAT compared to 7F6 for skin. 6-MV VMAT is an acceptable alternative to IMRT for HandN cancer and offers advantages in terms of sparing adjacent OAR.
RESUMO
Small fields smaller than 4 × 4 cm2 are used in stereotactic and conformal treatments where heterogeneity is normally present. Since dose calculation accuracy in both small fields and heterogeneity often involves more discrepancy, algorithms used by treatment planning systems (TPS) should be evaluated for achieving better treatment results. This report aims at evaluating accuracy of four model-based algorithms, X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) from Monaco, Superposition (SP) from CMS-Xio, AcurosXB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) from Eclipse are tested against the measurement. Measurements are done using Exradin W1 plastic scintillator in Solid Water phantom with heterogeneities like air, lung, bone, and aluminum, irradiated with 6 and 15 MV photons of square field size ranging from 1 to 4 cm2. Each heterogeneity is introduced individually at two different depths from depth-of-dose maximum (Dmax), one setup being nearer and another farther from the Dmax. The central axis percentage depth-dose (CADD) curve for each setup is measured separately and compared with the TPS algorithm calculated for the same setup. The percentage normalized root mean squared deviation (%NRMSD) is calculated, which represents the whole CADD curve's deviation against the measured. It is found that for air and lung heterogeneity, for both 6 and 15 MV, all algorithms show maximum deviation for field size 1 × 1 cm2 and gradually reduce when field size increases, except for AAA. For aluminum and bone, all algorithms' deviations are less for 15 MV irrespective of setup. In all heterogeneity setups, 1 × 1 cm2 field showed maximum deviation, except in 6MV bone setup. All algorithms in the study, irrespective of energy and field size, when any heterogeneity is nearer to Dmax, the dose deviation is higher compared to the same heterogeneity far from the Dmax. Also, all algorithms show maximum deviation in lower-density materials compared to high-density materials.
