Enhanced dynamic wedge factors at off-axis points in asymmetric fields.

Several recent reports have described methods for calculating enhanced dynamic wedge factors (EDWFs). Many of these reports use the monitor-unit (MU) fraction method to predict EDWFs as a function of field size. Although simple in approach, MU fraction methods do not produce accurate EDWFs in large or asymmetric fields. A recently described technique, based on the MU fraction method works well for large and asymmetric fields, but only when the calculation point is in the center of the field. Other existing methods based on beam-segment superposition do not have this limitation. These beam summation methods, however, are difficult to implement in routine clinical MU calculation schemes. In this paper, we present a simple calculation method that estimates EDWFs at off-axis calculation points in both symmetric and asymmetric fields. Our method, which also is based on the MU fraction method, similarly uses empirically determined field-size corrections but also applies wedged-field profiles to estimate EDWFs that are independent of calculation-point location and field symmetry. EDWF measurements for a variety of field sizes and calculation-point locations for both 6- and 18-MV x-ray beams were performed to validate our calculations and those of our ADAC Pinnacle3 Treatment Planning System. The disagreement between the calculated and measured EDWFs over the useful clinical range of field sizes and calculation-point locations was less than 2%. The worst disagreement was 3% and occurred at a point 8.5 cm from the center of an asymmetric 25 (wedged direction)x20 cm2 60 degrees-wedged field. Detailed comparisons of measurements with calculations and wedge factors obtained from the ADAC Pinnacle3 Treatment Planning System will be presented. In addition, the strengths and weaknesses of this calculation method will be discussed.

Beam-commissioning methodology for a three-dimensional convolution/superposition photon dose algorithm.

Commissioning beam data for the convolution/superposition dose-calculation algorithm used in a commercial three-dimensional radiation treatment planning (3D RTP) system (PINNACLE(3), ADAC Laboratories, Milpitas, CA) can be difficult and time consuming. Sixteen adjustable parameters, as well as spectral weights representing a discrete energy spectrum, must be fit to sets of central-axis depth doses and off-axis profiles for a large number of field sizes. This paper presents the beam-commissioning methodology that we used to generate accurate beam models. The methodology is relatively rapid and provides physically reasonable values for beam parameters. The methodology was initiated by using vendor-provided automodeling software to generate a single set of beam parameters that gives an approximate fit to relative dose distributions for all beams, open and wedged, in a data set. A limited number of beam parameters were adjusted by small amounts to give accurate beam models for four open-beam field sizes and three wedged-beam field sizes. Beam parameters for other field sizes were interpolated and validated against measured beam data. Using this methodology, a complete set of beam parameters for a single energy can be generated and validated in approximately 40 h. The resulting parameter values yielded calculated relative doses that matched measured relative doses in a water phantom to within 0.5-1.0% along the central axis and 2% along off-axis beam profiles for field sizes from 4 cmx4 cm to the largest field size available. While the methodology presented is specific to the ADAC PINNACLE(3) treatment planning system, the approach should apply to other implementations of the dose model in other treatment planning system.

On the need for monitor unit calculations as part of a beam commissioning methodology for a radiation treatment planning system.

This paper illustrates the need for validating the calculation of monitor units as part of the process of commissioning a photon beam model in a radiation treatment planning system. Examples are provided in which this validation identified subtle errors, either in the dose model or in the implementation of the dose algorithm. These errors would not have been detected if the commissioning process only compared relative dose distributions. A set of beam configurations, with varying field sizes, source-to-skin distances, wedges, and blocking, were established to validate monitor unit calculations for two different beam models in two different radiation treatment planning systems. Monitor units calculated using the treatment planning systems were compared with monitor units calculated from point dose calculations from tissue-maximum ratio (TMR) tables. When discrepancies occurred, the dose models and the code were analyzed to identify the causes of the discrepancies. Discrepancies in monitor unit calculations were both significant (up to 5%) and systematic. Analysis of the dose computation software found: (1) a coordinate system transformation error, (2) mishandling of dose-spread arrays, (3) differences between dose calculations in the commissioning software and the planning software, and (4) shortcomings in modeling of head scatter. Corrections were made in the beam calculation software or in the data sets to overcome these discrepancies. Consequently, we recommend incorporating validation of monitor unit calculations as part of a photon beam commissioning process.

Combined therapy as an alternative to exenteration for locally advanced vulvovaginal cancer. II. Results, complications, and dosimetric and surgical considerations.

We have introduced a therapeutic alternative to exenteration for locally advanced vulvovaginal cancer using surgery for the vulvar (external genital) phase of this disease presentation, combined with radiotherapy for the internal genital phase (with adequate overlap of fields to protect surgical margins). The rationale is that this approach treats the cancer and its dual regional spread patterns, while at the same time preserving the bladder and/or rectum, and should be associated with less morbidity and mortality than exenterative surgery. This report updates our experience with a total of 48 treated cases (37 primary cases and 11 cases of recurrent disease). Of the 37 primary cases, 20 were FIGO stage III, 4 were FIGO stage IV, and 3 other cases represented "field" cancers involving vulva and/or cervix and/or vagina. Utilizing a Life Table analysis, the 5-year survival for the primary cases was 75.6%. Published FIGO survival for stage III is 32% and for stage IV 10.5%. Life Table analysis projects a 62.6% survival for recurrent cases and an overall 72% 5-year survival for all 48 cases treated. With 48 patients treated, 48 bladders and 48 rectums were at risk for surgical removal had exenteration been employed. One patient had a total pelvic exenteration for local failure, and one had a posterior exenteration for local failure. One bladder and one rectum were lost to permanent diversion because of radiation injury. Thus, 5 of these major viscera were lost of the 96 total, and 91 (94.8%) were retained. Radiation therapy and surgical details have been reviewed relevant to local control and local failure and complications. The continuing evolution of treatment modifications of all modalities will be discussed. The apparent advantages of this combined therapeutic approach over exenterative surgery include high probability of bladder and/or rectal preservation, low primary mortality, low treatment morbidity, and very good results in cancer control.