Cargando…

Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor

Several studies have reported changes in dose distribution and delivery time based on the value of specific planning parameters [field width (FW), pitch, and modulation factor (MF)] in tomotherapy. However, the variation in the parameters between different facilities is unknown. The purpose of this...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shimizu, Hidetoshi, Sasaki, Koji, Kubota, Takashi, Fukuma, Hiroshi, Aoyama, Takahiro, Iwata, Tohru, Tachibana, Hiroyuki, Kodaira, Takeshi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6151637/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29868727
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rry042
_version_ 1783357196716736512
author Shimizu, Hidetoshi
Sasaki, Koji
Kubota, Takashi
Fukuma, Hiroshi
Aoyama, Takahiro
Iwata, Tohru
Tachibana, Hiroyuki
Kodaira, Takeshi
author_facet Shimizu, Hidetoshi
Sasaki, Koji
Kubota, Takashi
Fukuma, Hiroshi
Aoyama, Takahiro
Iwata, Tohru
Tachibana, Hiroyuki
Kodaira, Takeshi
author_sort Shimizu, Hidetoshi
collection PubMed
description Several studies have reported changes in dose distribution and delivery time based on the value of specific planning parameters [field width (FW), pitch, and modulation factor (MF)] in tomotherapy. However, the variation in the parameters between different facilities is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine standard values of the above parameters for cases of head and neck cancer (HNC) and prostate cancer (PC) in Japan. In this survey, a web-based questionnaire was sent to 48 facilities performing radiation therapy with tomotherapy in March 2016. The deadline for data submission was April 2016. In the questionnaire, the values of the planning parameters usually used were requested and 23 responses were received, representing a response rate of 48% (23/48). The FW selected was 2.5 cm in most facilities, and facilities with a tomoEDGE license used dynamic FW rather than fixed FW. Facilities changed the pitch based on FW, dose per fraction, or target offset more frequently in HNC than in PC. In contrast, >50% of the facilities used the magic number proposed by Kissick et al. Median preset MFs (range, min to max) in HNC and PC were 2.4 (1.8–2.8) and 2.0 (1.8–3.0), respectively, and MF values showed large variations between the facilities. Our results are likely to be useful to several facilities designing treatment plans in tomotherapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6151637
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61516372018-09-27 Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor Shimizu, Hidetoshi Sasaki, Koji Kubota, Takashi Fukuma, Hiroshi Aoyama, Takahiro Iwata, Tohru Tachibana, Hiroyuki Kodaira, Takeshi J Radiat Res Regular Paper Several studies have reported changes in dose distribution and delivery time based on the value of specific planning parameters [field width (FW), pitch, and modulation factor (MF)] in tomotherapy. However, the variation in the parameters between different facilities is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine standard values of the above parameters for cases of head and neck cancer (HNC) and prostate cancer (PC) in Japan. In this survey, a web-based questionnaire was sent to 48 facilities performing radiation therapy with tomotherapy in March 2016. The deadline for data submission was April 2016. In the questionnaire, the values of the planning parameters usually used were requested and 23 responses were received, representing a response rate of 48% (23/48). The FW selected was 2.5 cm in most facilities, and facilities with a tomoEDGE license used dynamic FW rather than fixed FW. Facilities changed the pitch based on FW, dose per fraction, or target offset more frequently in HNC than in PC. In contrast, >50% of the facilities used the magic number proposed by Kissick et al. Median preset MFs (range, min to max) in HNC and PC were 2.4 (1.8–2.8) and 2.0 (1.8–3.0), respectively, and MF values showed large variations between the facilities. Our results are likely to be useful to several facilities designing treatment plans in tomotherapy. Oxford University Press 2018-09 2018-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6151637/ /pubmed/29868727 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rry042 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japan Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Regular Paper
Shimizu, Hidetoshi
Sasaki, Koji
Kubota, Takashi
Fukuma, Hiroshi
Aoyama, Takahiro
Iwata, Tohru
Tachibana, Hiroyuki
Kodaira, Takeshi
Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor
title Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor
title_full Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor
title_fullStr Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor
title_full_unstemmed Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor
title_short Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor
title_sort interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor
topic Regular Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6151637/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29868727
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rry042
work_keys_str_mv AT shimizuhidetoshi interfacilityvariationintreatmentplanningparametersintomotherapyfieldwidthpitchandmodulationfactor
AT sasakikoji interfacilityvariationintreatmentplanningparametersintomotherapyfieldwidthpitchandmodulationfactor
AT kubotatakashi interfacilityvariationintreatmentplanningparametersintomotherapyfieldwidthpitchandmodulationfactor
AT fukumahiroshi interfacilityvariationintreatmentplanningparametersintomotherapyfieldwidthpitchandmodulationfactor
AT aoyamatakahiro interfacilityvariationintreatmentplanningparametersintomotherapyfieldwidthpitchandmodulationfactor
AT iwatatohru interfacilityvariationintreatmentplanningparametersintomotherapyfieldwidthpitchandmodulationfactor
AT tachibanahiroyuki interfacilityvariationintreatmentplanningparametersintomotherapyfieldwidthpitchandmodulationfactor
AT kodairatakeshi interfacilityvariationintreatmentplanningparametersintomotherapyfieldwidthpitchandmodulationfactor