• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.269-276
• /
• 2009

Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) for photon beams have been used to achieve such goals. In the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), which we are using in our clinics, a set of model parameters like jaw collimator transmission factor (JTF) and MLC transmission factor (MLCTF) are determined from the measured data because it is using a model-based photon dose algorithm. However, model parameters obtained by this auto-modeling process can be different from those by direct measurement, which can have a dosimetric effect on the dose distribution. In this paper we estimated JTF and MLCTF obtained by the auto-modeling process in the Pinnacle3 TPS. At first, we obtained JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement, which were the ratio of the output at the reference depth under the closed jaw collimator (MLCs for MLCTF) to that at the same depth with the field size $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ in the water phantom. And then JTF and MLCTF were also obtained by auto-modeling process. And we evaluated the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan. For direct measurement, JTF was 0.001966 for 6 MV and 0.002971 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.01657 for 6 MV and 0.01925 for 10 MV. On the other hand, for auto-modeling process, JTF was 0.001983 for 6 MV and 0.010431 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.00188 for 6 MV and 0.00453 for 10 MV. JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement were very different from those by auto-modeling process and even more reasonable considering each beam quality of 6 MV and 10 MV. These different parameters affect the dose in the low-dose region. Since the wrong estimation of JTF and MLCTF can lead some dosimetric error, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.331-339
• /
• 2014

To test feasibility of proton arc therapy (PAT) in the treatment of para-aortic lymph node tumor and compare its dosimetric properties with advanced radiotherapy techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional 3D conformal proton beam therapy (PBT). The treatment plans for para-aortic lymph node tumor were planned for 9 patients treated at our institution using IMRT, PBT, and PAT. Feasibility test and dosimetric evaluation were based on comparisons of dose volume histograms (DVHs) which reveal mean dose, $D_{30%}$, $D_{60%}$, $D_{90%}$, $V_{30%}$, $V_{60%}$, $V_{90%}$, organ equivalent doses (OEDs), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI). The average doses delivered by PAT to the liver, kidney, small bowel, duodenum, stomach were 7.6%, 3%, 17.3%, 26.7%, and 14.4%, of the prescription dose (PD), respectively, which is higher than the doses delivered by IMRT (0.4%, 7.2%, 14.2%, 15.9%, and 12.8%, respectively) and PBT (4.9%, 0.5%, 14.12%, 16.1% 9.9%, respectively). The average homogeneity index and conformity index of tumor using PAT were 12.1 and 1.21, respectively which were much better than IMRT (21.5 and 1.47, respectively) and comparable to PBT (13.1 and 1.23, respectively). The result shows that both NTCP and OED of PAT are generally lower than IMRT and PBT. This study demonstrates that PAT is better in target conformity and homogeneity than IMRT and PBT but worse than IMRT and PBT for most of dosimetric factor which indicate that PAT is not recommended for the treatment of para-aortic lymph node tumor.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.237-242
• /
• 2013

In the intracranial regions, an accurate delineation of the target volume has been difficult with only the CT data due to poor soft tissue contrast of CT images. Therefore, the magnetic resonance images (MRI) for the delineation of the target volumes were widely used. To calculate dose distributions with MRI-based RTP, the electron density (ED) mapping concept from the diagnostic CT images and the pseudo CT concept from the MRI were introduced. In this study, the look up table (LUT) from the fifteen patients' diagnostic brain MRI images was created to verify the feasibility of MRI-based RTP. The dose distributions from the MRI-based calculations were compared to the original CT-based calculation. One MRI set has ED information from LUT (lMRI). Another set was generated with voxel values assigned with a homogeneous density of water (wMRI). A simple plan with a single anterior 6MV one portal was applied to the CT, lMRI, and wMRI. Depending on the patient's target geometry for the 3D conformal plan, 6MV photon beams and from two to five gantry portals were used. The differences of the dose distribution and DVH between the lMRI based and CT-based plan were smaller than the wMRI-based plan. The dose difference of wMRI vs. lMRI was measured as 91 cGy vs. 57 cGy at maximum dose, 74 cGt vs. 42 cGy at mean dose, and 94 cGy vs. 53 at minimum dose. The differences of maximum dose, minimum dose, and mean dose of the wMRI-based plan were lower than the lMRI-based plan, because the air cavity was not calculated in the wMRI-based plan. These results prove the feasibility of the lMRI-based planning for brain tumor radiation therapy.