Cargando…

Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines?

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree of dose distribution distortion in advanced treatments like IMRT and RapidArc when patient plans are swapped across dosimetrically equivalent so‐called “beam‐matched” machines. For this purpose the entire work is divided into two stages. At forefro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krishnappan, Chockkalingam, Radha, Chandrasekaran Anu, Subramani, Vendhan, Gunasekaran, Madhan Kumar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6104
_version_ 1783310104017240064
author Krishnappan, Chockkalingam
Radha, Chandrasekaran Anu
Subramani, Vendhan
Gunasekaran, Madhan Kumar
author_facet Krishnappan, Chockkalingam
Radha, Chandrasekaran Anu
Subramani, Vendhan
Gunasekaran, Madhan Kumar
author_sort Krishnappan, Chockkalingam
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree of dose distribution distortion in advanced treatments like IMRT and RapidArc when patient plans are swapped across dosimetrically equivalent so‐called “beam‐matched” machines. For this purpose the entire work is divided into two stages. At forefront stage all basic beam properties of 6 MV X‐rays like PDD, profiles, output factors, TPR20/10 and MLC transmission of two beam‐matched machines — Varian Clinac iX and Varian 600 C/D Unique — are compared and evaluated for differences. At second stage 40 IMRT and RapidArc patient plans from the pool of head and neck (H&N) and pelvis sites are selected for the study. The plans are swapped across the machines for dose recalculation and the DVHs of target and critical organs are evaluated for dose differences. Following this, the accuracy of the beam‐matching at the TPS level for treatments like IMRT and RapidArc are compared. On PDD, profile (central 80%) and output factor comparison between the two machines, a maximum percentage disagreement value of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , respectively, has been observed. The maximum dose difference observed at volumes in IMRT and RapidArc treatments for H&N dose prescription of 69.3 Gy/33 fractions is 0.88 Gy and 0.82 Gy, respectively. Similarly, for pelvis, with a dose prescription of 50 Gy/25 fractions, a maximum dose difference of 0.55 Gy and 0.53 Gy is observed at volumes in IMRT and RapidArc treatments, respectively. Overall results of the swapped plans between two machines' 6 MV X‐rays are well within the limits of accepted clinical tolerance. PACS number(s): 87.56.bd
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5874098
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58740982018-04-02 Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines? Krishnappan, Chockkalingam Radha, Chandrasekaran Anu Subramani, Vendhan Gunasekaran, Madhan Kumar J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree of dose distribution distortion in advanced treatments like IMRT and RapidArc when patient plans are swapped across dosimetrically equivalent so‐called “beam‐matched” machines. For this purpose the entire work is divided into two stages. At forefront stage all basic beam properties of 6 MV X‐rays like PDD, profiles, output factors, TPR20/10 and MLC transmission of two beam‐matched machines — Varian Clinac iX and Varian 600 C/D Unique — are compared and evaluated for differences. At second stage 40 IMRT and RapidArc patient plans from the pool of head and neck (H&N) and pelvis sites are selected for the study. The plans are swapped across the machines for dose recalculation and the DVHs of target and critical organs are evaluated for dose differences. Following this, the accuracy of the beam‐matching at the TPS level for treatments like IMRT and RapidArc are compared. On PDD, profile (central 80%) and output factor comparison between the two machines, a maximum percentage disagreement value of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , respectively, has been observed. The maximum dose difference observed at volumes in IMRT and RapidArc treatments for H&N dose prescription of 69.3 Gy/33 fractions is 0.88 Gy and 0.82 Gy, respectively. Similarly, for pelvis, with a dose prescription of 50 Gy/25 fractions, a maximum dose difference of 0.55 Gy and 0.53 Gy is observed at volumes in IMRT and RapidArc treatments, respectively. Overall results of the swapped plans between two machines' 6 MV X‐rays are well within the limits of accepted clinical tolerance. PACS number(s): 87.56.bd John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5874098/ /pubmed/27685106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6104 Text en © 2016 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
Krishnappan, Chockkalingam
Radha, Chandrasekaran Anu
Subramani, Vendhan
Gunasekaran, Madhan Kumar
Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines?
title Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines?
title_full Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines?
title_fullStr Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines?
title_full_unstemmed Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines?
title_short Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines?
title_sort is the dose distribution distorted in imrt and rapidarc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam‐matched machines?
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6104
work_keys_str_mv AT krishnappanchockkalingam isthedosedistributiondistortedinimrtandrapidarctreatmentwhenpatientplansareswappedacrossbeammatchedmachines
AT radhachandrasekarananu isthedosedistributiondistortedinimrtandrapidarctreatmentwhenpatientplansareswappedacrossbeammatchedmachines
AT subramanivendhan isthedosedistributiondistortedinimrtandrapidarctreatmentwhenpatientplansareswappedacrossbeammatchedmachines
AT gunasekaranmadhankumar isthedosedistributiondistortedinimrtandrapidarctreatmentwhenpatientplansareswappedacrossbeammatchedmachines