Cargando…

Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy

The number of linac monitor units (MU) from intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy (IMST) is substantially larger than the MU delivered in conventional radiation therapy, and the relation between MU and dose is obscure due to complicated variation of the beam intensities. The purpose of this wor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tsai, Jen‐San, Engler, Mark J., Liu, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2002
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11958653
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v3i2.2577
_version_ 1783285390721941504
author Tsai, Jen‐San
Engler, Mark J.
Liu, James
author_facet Tsai, Jen‐San
Engler, Mark J.
Liu, James
author_sort Tsai, Jen‐San
collection PubMed
description The number of linac monitor units (MU) from intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy (IMST) is substantially larger than the MU delivered in conventional radiation therapy, and the relation between MU and dose is obscure due to complicated variation of the beam intensities. The purpose of this work was to develop a practical method of verifying the MU and dose from IMST so that the MU of each arced beam could be double‐checked for accuracy. MU calculations for 41 arced beams from 14 IMST patients were performed using the variables of vane open fraction time, field size, target depth output factor, TMR, and derived intensity distribution. Discrepancy between planned and checked MU was quantified as [Formula: see text] percent. All 41 discrepancies were clustered between [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] , illustrated in a Gaussian‐shaped histogram centered at [Formula: see text] standard deviation indicating the present MU calculations are in agreement with the planned expectations. To confirm the correctness of the present calculated MUs of the IMST plans, eight of the calculated IMST plans are performed dose verifications using their hybrid plans, which are created by transporting patient's IMST plan beams onto a spherical polystyrene Phantom for dose distribution within the Phantom. The dose was measured with a 0.07 cc ionization chamber inserted in the spherical Phantom during the hybrid plan irradiation. Average discrepancy between planned and measured doses was found to be [Formula: see text] with single standard deviation uncertainty. The spread of the discrepancies of present calculated MUs relative to their planned ones are attributed to uncertainties of effective field size, effective planned dose corresponding to each arc, and inaccuracy of quantification of scattered dose from adjacent arced beams. Overall, the present calculation of MUs is consistent with what derived from treatment plans. Since the MUs are verified by actual dose measurements, therefore the present MU calculation technique is considered adequate for double‐checking planned IMST MUs. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5724610
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2002
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57246102018-04-02 Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy Tsai, Jen‐San Engler, Mark J. Liu, James J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The number of linac monitor units (MU) from intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy (IMST) is substantially larger than the MU delivered in conventional radiation therapy, and the relation between MU and dose is obscure due to complicated variation of the beam intensities. The purpose of this work was to develop a practical method of verifying the MU and dose from IMST so that the MU of each arced beam could be double‐checked for accuracy. MU calculations for 41 arced beams from 14 IMST patients were performed using the variables of vane open fraction time, field size, target depth output factor, TMR, and derived intensity distribution. Discrepancy between planned and checked MU was quantified as [Formula: see text] percent. All 41 discrepancies were clustered between [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] , illustrated in a Gaussian‐shaped histogram centered at [Formula: see text] standard deviation indicating the present MU calculations are in agreement with the planned expectations. To confirm the correctness of the present calculated MUs of the IMST plans, eight of the calculated IMST plans are performed dose verifications using their hybrid plans, which are created by transporting patient's IMST plan beams onto a spherical polystyrene Phantom for dose distribution within the Phantom. The dose was measured with a 0.07 cc ionization chamber inserted in the spherical Phantom during the hybrid plan irradiation. Average discrepancy between planned and measured doses was found to be [Formula: see text] with single standard deviation uncertainty. The spread of the discrepancies of present calculated MUs relative to their planned ones are attributed to uncertainties of effective field size, effective planned dose corresponding to each arc, and inaccuracy of quantification of scattered dose from adjacent arced beams. Overall, the present calculation of MUs is consistent with what derived from treatment plans. Since the MUs are verified by actual dose measurements, therefore the present MU calculation technique is considered adequate for double‐checking planned IMST MUs. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2002-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5724610/ /pubmed/11958653 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v3i2.2577 Text en © 2002 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Tsai, Jen‐San
Engler, Mark J.
Liu, James
Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy
title Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy
title_full Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy
title_fullStr Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy
title_short Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy
title_sort quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11958653
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v3i2.2577
work_keys_str_mv AT tsaijensan quasiindependentmonitorunitcalculationforintensitymodulatedsequentialtomotherapy
AT englermarkj quasiindependentmonitorunitcalculationforintensitymodulatedsequentialtomotherapy
AT liujames quasiindependentmonitorunitcalculationforintensitymodulatedsequentialtomotherapy