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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |