scholarly journals Incorporation of gantry angle correction for 3D dose prediction in intensity-modulated radiation therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 594-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Sumida ◽  
H. Yamaguchi ◽  
H. Kizaki ◽  
K. Aboshi ◽  
M. Tsujii ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Dose Prediction ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Angle Correction ◽  
Gantry Angle

Clinical impact of anisotropic analytical algorithm and Acuros XB dose calculation algorithms for intensity modulated radiation therapy in lung cancer patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Chaymaa Abdullah ◽  
Hamed Farag ◽  
Wael El-Sheshtawy ◽  
Hassan Aboelenein ◽  
O.W. Guirguis
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Average Dose ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Dose Prediction ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Analytical Algorithm

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate dose differences predicted between using Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) in patients diagnosed with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: A phantom study was done to evaluate the dose prediction accuracy of AXB and AAA beyond low-density medium by comparing the calculated measurement results. Thirty-two advanced NSCLC patients were subjected to IMRT. The dose regimen was 60 Gy over 30 fractions. Effects on planning target volume (PTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) were evaluated. Clinically acceptable treatment plans with AAA were re-calculated using AXB algorithms with two modes Dw and Dm at the same beam arrangements and multileaf collimator leaf settings as with AAA. RESULTS: Using AXB yielded better agreement with the measurements and the average dose difference for all points was about 0.5%. Conversely, using AAA showed a larger disagreement with measured values and the average difference was up to 5.9%. The maximum relative difference was between AXB_Dm and AAA for PTV dose (D98 %). The percentage dose differences of plans calculated by AAA, AXB_Dw and AAA, AXB_Dm revealed that AAA overestimated the dose than AXB. Regarding OAR, results showed significant difference for lungs-PTV. CONCLUSIONS: AXB algorithm yields more accurate dose prediction than AAA in heterogeneous medium. Differences in dose distribution are observed when plans re-calculated with AXB indicating that AAA apparently overestimates dose, particularly the PTV dose. Thus, AXB algorithm should be used in preference to AAA for cases in which PTVs are involved with tissues of highly different densities, such as lung.

Dosimetric effects of patient displacement and collimator and gantry angle misalignment on intensity modulated radiation therapy

2000 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Xing ◽  
Zhi-Xiong Lin ◽  
Sarah S Donaldson ◽  
Quynh Thu Le ◽  
David Tate ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Gantry Angle

scholarly journals Evaluation of jaws-only intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plans using Octavius 4D system

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duong Thanh Tai ◽  
Luong Thi Oanh ◽  
Nguyen Dong Son ◽  
Truong Thi Hong Loan
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Angle Measurements ◽  
Gamma Index ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
Zero Degree ◽  
Gantry Angle ◽  
Therapy Treatment

Abstract Introduction: Jaws-Only Intensity modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) is a technique uses the collimator jaws of the linear accelerator (LINAC) to delivery of complex intensity patterns. In previous studies, pretreatment patient specific quality assurance for those JO-IMRT were also performed using ionization chamber, MapCHECK2, and Octavius 4D and good agreements were shown. The aim of this study is to further verify JO-IMRT plans in 2 different cases: one with the gantry angle set equal to beam angle as in the plans and the other with gantry angle set to zero degree. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five JO-IMRT, previously verified, were executed twice for each plan. The first one used a real gantry angle, and the second one used a 0° gantry angle. Measurements were performed using Octavius 4D 1500. Results: The results were analyzed using Verisoft software. The results show that the Gamma average was 97.32 ± 2.21% for IMRT with a 0° gantry angle and 94.72 ± 2.67% for IMRT with a true gantry angle. Conclusion: In both cases, gamma index of more than 90% were found for all of our 25 JO-IMRT treatment plans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document