Cargando…
Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6
Compared to a conventional linear accelerator, the Cyberknife (CK) is a unique system with respect to radiation protection shielding and the variety and number of non‐coplanar beams are two key components regarding this aspect. In this work, a framework to assess the direction distribution and modul...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5768034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29125234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12215 |
_version_ | 1783292638814797824 |
---|---|
author | Henzen, Dominik Schmidhalter, Daniel Zanella, Claudia Christina Volken, Werner Mackeprang, Paul‐Henry Malthaner, Marco Fix, Michael Karl Manser, Peter |
author_facet | Henzen, Dominik Schmidhalter, Daniel Zanella, Claudia Christina Volken, Werner Mackeprang, Paul‐Henry Malthaner, Marco Fix, Michael Karl Manser, Peter |
author_sort | Henzen, Dominik |
collection | PubMed |
description | Compared to a conventional linear accelerator, the Cyberknife (CK) is a unique system with respect to radiation protection shielding and the variety and number of non‐coplanar beams are two key components regarding this aspect. In this work, a framework to assess the direction distribution and modulation factor (MF) of clinically applied treatment beams of a CyberKnife M6 is developed. Database filtering options allow studying the influence of different parameters such as collimator types, treatment sites or different bunker sizes. A distribution of monitor units (MU) is generated by projecting treatment beams onto the walls, floor and ceiling of the CyberKnife bunker. This distribution is found to be highly heterogeneous and depending, among other parameters, on the bunker size. For our bunker design, 10%–13% of the MUs are delivered to the right and left wall, each. The floor receives more than 64% of the applied MUs, while the wall behind the patient's head is not hit by primary treatment beams. Between 0% and 5% of the total MUs are delivered to the wall at the patient's feet. This number highly depends on the treatment site, e.g., for extracranial patients no beams hit that wall. Collimator choice was found to have minor influence on the distribution of MUs. On the other hand, the MF depends on the collimator type as well as on the treatment site. The MFs (delivered MU/prescribed dose) for all treatments, all MLC treatments, cranial and extracranial treatments are 8.3, 6.4, 7.7, and 9.9 MU/cGy, respectively. The developed framework allows assessing and monitoring important parameters regarding radiation protection of a CK‐M6 using the actually applied treatment beams. Furthermore, it enables evaluating different clinical and constructional situations using the filtering options. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5768034 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57680342018-04-02 Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6 Henzen, Dominik Schmidhalter, Daniel Zanella, Claudia Christina Volken, Werner Mackeprang, Paul‐Henry Malthaner, Marco Fix, Michael Karl Manser, Peter J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Protection & Regulations Compared to a conventional linear accelerator, the Cyberknife (CK) is a unique system with respect to radiation protection shielding and the variety and number of non‐coplanar beams are two key components regarding this aspect. In this work, a framework to assess the direction distribution and modulation factor (MF) of clinically applied treatment beams of a CyberKnife M6 is developed. Database filtering options allow studying the influence of different parameters such as collimator types, treatment sites or different bunker sizes. A distribution of monitor units (MU) is generated by projecting treatment beams onto the walls, floor and ceiling of the CyberKnife bunker. This distribution is found to be highly heterogeneous and depending, among other parameters, on the bunker size. For our bunker design, 10%–13% of the MUs are delivered to the right and left wall, each. The floor receives more than 64% of the applied MUs, while the wall behind the patient's head is not hit by primary treatment beams. Between 0% and 5% of the total MUs are delivered to the wall at the patient's feet. This number highly depends on the treatment site, e.g., for extracranial patients no beams hit that wall. Collimator choice was found to have minor influence on the distribution of MUs. On the other hand, the MF depends on the collimator type as well as on the treatment site. The MFs (delivered MU/prescribed dose) for all treatments, all MLC treatments, cranial and extracranial treatments are 8.3, 6.4, 7.7, and 9.9 MU/cGy, respectively. The developed framework allows assessing and monitoring important parameters regarding radiation protection of a CK‐M6 using the actually applied treatment beams. Furthermore, it enables evaluating different clinical and constructional situations using the filtering options. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5768034/ /pubmed/29125234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12215 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Protection & Regulations Henzen, Dominik Schmidhalter, Daniel Zanella, Claudia Christina Volken, Werner Mackeprang, Paul‐Henry Malthaner, Marco Fix, Michael Karl Manser, Peter Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6 |
title | Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6 |
title_full | Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6 |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6 |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6 |
title_short | Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6 |
title_sort | evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a cyberknife m6 |
topic | Radiation Protection & Regulations |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5768034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29125234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12215 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT henzendominik evaluationofclinicallyappliedtreatmentbeamswithrespecttobunkershieldingparametersforacyberknifem6 AT schmidhalterdaniel evaluationofclinicallyappliedtreatmentbeamswithrespecttobunkershieldingparametersforacyberknifem6 AT zanellaclaudiachristina evaluationofclinicallyappliedtreatmentbeamswithrespecttobunkershieldingparametersforacyberknifem6 AT volkenwerner evaluationofclinicallyappliedtreatmentbeamswithrespecttobunkershieldingparametersforacyberknifem6 AT mackeprangpaulhenry evaluationofclinicallyappliedtreatmentbeamswithrespecttobunkershieldingparametersforacyberknifem6 AT malthanermarco evaluationofclinicallyappliedtreatmentbeamswithrespecttobunkershieldingparametersforacyberknifem6 AT fixmichaelkarl evaluationofclinicallyappliedtreatmentbeamswithrespecttobunkershieldingparametersforacyberknifem6 AT manserpeter evaluationofclinicallyappliedtreatmentbeamswithrespecttobunkershieldingparametersforacyberknifem6 |