Cargando…

Water Equivalent Thickness Analysis of Immobilization Devices for Clinical Implementation in Proton Therapy

Immobilization devices can impact not only the inter- and intra-fraction motion of the patient, but also the range uncertainty of the treatment beam in proton therapy. In order to limit additional range uncertainty, the water equivalent thickness (WET) of the immobilization device needs to be well k...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wroe, A. J., Ghebremedhin, A., Gordon, I. R., Schulte, R. W., Slater, J. D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24000987
http://dx.doi.org/10.7785/tcrtexpress.2013.600260
_version_ 1782384566546202624
author Wroe, A. J.
Ghebremedhin, A.
Gordon, I. R.
Schulte, R. W.
Slater, J. D.
author_facet Wroe, A. J.
Ghebremedhin, A.
Gordon, I. R.
Schulte, R. W.
Slater, J. D.
author_sort Wroe, A. J.
collection PubMed
description Immobilization devices can impact not only the inter- and intra-fraction motion of the patient, but also the range uncertainty of the treatment beam in proton therapy. In order to limit additional range uncertainty, the water equivalent thickness (WET) of the immobilization device needs to be well known and accurately reflected in the calculations by the treatment planning system (TPS). The method presented here focusses on the use of a nozzle-mounted variable range shifter and precision-machined polystyrene blocks of known WET to evaluate commercial immobilization devices prior to clinical implementation. CT studies were also completed to evaluate the internal uniformity of the immobilization devices under study. Multiple inserts of the kVue platform (Qfix Systems, Avondale, PA) were evaluated as part of this study. The results indicate that the inserts are largely interchangeable across a given design type and that the measured WET values agree with those generated by the TPS with a maximum difference less than 1 mm. The WET of the devices, as determined by the TPS, was not impacted by CT beam hardening normally experienced during clinical use. The reproducibility of the WET method was also determined to be better than ±0.02 mm. In conclusion, the testing of immobilization prior to implementation in proton therapy is essential in order to ascertain their impact on the proton treatment and the methodology described here can also be applied to other immobilization systems.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4527428
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45274282015-10-07 Water Equivalent Thickness Analysis of Immobilization Devices for Clinical Implementation in Proton Therapy Wroe, A. J. Ghebremedhin, A. Gordon, I. R. Schulte, R. W. Slater, J. D. Technol Cancer Res Treat Articles Immobilization devices can impact not only the inter- and intra-fraction motion of the patient, but also the range uncertainty of the treatment beam in proton therapy. In order to limit additional range uncertainty, the water equivalent thickness (WET) of the immobilization device needs to be well known and accurately reflected in the calculations by the treatment planning system (TPS). The method presented here focusses on the use of a nozzle-mounted variable range shifter and precision-machined polystyrene blocks of known WET to evaluate commercial immobilization devices prior to clinical implementation. CT studies were also completed to evaluate the internal uniformity of the immobilization devices under study. Multiple inserts of the kVue platform (Qfix Systems, Avondale, PA) were evaluated as part of this study. The results indicate that the inserts are largely interchangeable across a given design type and that the measured WET values agree with those generated by the TPS with a maximum difference less than 1 mm. The WET of the devices, as determined by the TPS, was not impacted by CT beam hardening normally experienced during clinical use. The reproducibility of the WET method was also determined to be better than ±0.02 mm. In conclusion, the testing of immobilization prior to implementation in proton therapy is essential in order to ascertain their impact on the proton treatment and the methodology described here can also be applied to other immobilization systems. SAGE Publications 2014-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4527428/ /pubmed/24000987 http://dx.doi.org/10.7785/tcrtexpress.2013.600260 Text en © Adenine Press (2014) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Articles
Wroe, A. J.
Ghebremedhin, A.
Gordon, I. R.
Schulte, R. W.
Slater, J. D.
Water Equivalent Thickness Analysis of Immobilization Devices for Clinical Implementation in Proton Therapy
title Water Equivalent Thickness Analysis of Immobilization Devices for Clinical Implementation in Proton Therapy
title_full Water Equivalent Thickness Analysis of Immobilization Devices for Clinical Implementation in Proton Therapy
title_fullStr Water Equivalent Thickness Analysis of Immobilization Devices for Clinical Implementation in Proton Therapy
title_full_unstemmed Water Equivalent Thickness Analysis of Immobilization Devices for Clinical Implementation in Proton Therapy
title_short Water Equivalent Thickness Analysis of Immobilization Devices for Clinical Implementation in Proton Therapy
title_sort water equivalent thickness analysis of immobilization devices for clinical implementation in proton therapy
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24000987
http://dx.doi.org/10.7785/tcrtexpress.2013.600260
work_keys_str_mv AT wroeaj waterequivalentthicknessanalysisofimmobilizationdevicesforclinicalimplementationinprotontherapy
AT ghebremedhina waterequivalentthicknessanalysisofimmobilizationdevicesforclinicalimplementationinprotontherapy
AT gordonir waterequivalentthicknessanalysisofimmobilizationdevicesforclinicalimplementationinprotontherapy
AT schulterw waterequivalentthicknessanalysisofimmobilizationdevicesforclinicalimplementationinprotontherapy
AT slaterjd waterequivalentthicknessanalysisofimmobilizationdevicesforclinicalimplementationinprotontherapy