WE-D-224C-03: Surface Dose Measurements for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

2006 ◽  
Vol 33 (6Part20) ◽  
pp. 2249-2249 ◽  
Author(s):  
MJ Mitchell ◽  
C Ramsey
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Surface Dose ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Dose Measurements

Evaluation of thermoplastic Klarity mask use during intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck carcinoma

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaldoon Radaideh
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Skin Dose ◽  
Surface Dose ◽  
Thermoluminescent Dosimeters ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Skin Doses ◽  
Dose Measurements

AbstractAimTo evaluate the Klarity® Mask with respect to skin doses and toxicity secondary to head and neck cancer radiation treatment.Materials and methodsThis prospective study included five nasopharyngeal cancer patients who underwent intensity-modulated radiation therapy and monitored for skin toxicity. An anatomical Perspex head and neck phantom was designed and used. All patients’ treatment plans were separately transferred to the phantom. Dosimetric measurements were performed using chip-shaped thermoluminescent dosimeters (LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs) which were distributed at certain target points on the phantom. Phantom was irradiated twicely with and without a Klarity® Mask. Three fractions for each patient plan were obtained and compared with treatment planning system (TPS) doses as guided by computed tomography.ResultsThe Klarity mask used for patient immobilisation increased the surface dose by 10·83% more than that without the mask. The average variations between skin dose measurements with and without the Klarity mask for all patients’ plans ranged from 10·26 to 11·83%. TPS overestimated the surface dose by 19·13% when compared with thermoluminescent dosimeters that measured the direct skin dose.ConclusionsKlarity immobilisation mask increases skin doses, as a consequence, surface dose measurements should be monitored and must be taken into account.

Extra-target doses in children receiving multileaf collimator (MLC) based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)

2004 ◽  
Vol 42 (7) ◽  
pp. 626-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Koshy ◽  
Arnold C. Paulino ◽  
Robert B. Marcus ◽  
Joseph Y. Ting ◽  
Daisy Whitaker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Multileaf Collimator ◽  
Intensity Modulated

scholarly journals Early Clinical Outcomes of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy/Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Combination in Comparison with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Alone in Oropharynx Cancer Patients

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1549
Author(s):  
Han Gyul Yoon ◽  
Yong Chan Ahn ◽  
Dongryul Oh ◽  
Jae Myoung Noh ◽  
Seung Gyu Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Combination Group ◽  
Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy ◽  
Oropharynx Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Early Clinical Outcomes

Purpose: To report the early clinical outcomes of combining intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in comparison with IMRT alone in treating oropharynx cancer (OPC) patients. Materials and Methods: The medical records of 148 OPC patients who underwent definitive radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent systemic therapy, from January 2016 till December 2019 at Samsung Medical Center, were retrospectively reviewed. During the 5.5 weeks’ RT course, the initial 16 (or 18) fractions were delivered by IMRT in all patients, and the subsequent 12 (or 10) fractions were either by IMRT in 81 patients (IMRT only) or by IMPT in 67 (IMRT/IMPT combination), respectively, based on comparison of adaptive re-plan profiles and availability of equipment. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was done on 76 patients (38 from each group) for comparative analyses. Results: With the median follow-up of 24.7 months, there was no significant difference in overall survival and progression free survival between groups, both before and after PSM. Before PSM, the IMRT/IMPT combination group experienced grade ≥ 3 acute toxicities less frequently: mucositis in 37.0% and 13.4% (p < 0.001); and analgesic quantification algorithm (AQA) in 37.0% and 19.4% (p = 0.019), respectively. The same trends were observed after PSM: mucositis in 39.5% and 15.8% (p = 0.021); and AQA in 47.4% and 21.1% (p = 0.016), respectively. In multivariate logistic regression, grade ≥ 3 mucositis was significantly less frequent in the IMRT/IMPT combination group, both before and after PSM (p = 0.027 and 0.024, respectively). AQA score ≥ 3 was also less frequent in the IMRT/IMPT combination group, both before and after PSM (p = 0.085 and 0.018, respectively). Conclusions: In treating the OPC patients, with comparable early oncologic outcomes, more favorable acute toxicity profiles were achieved following IMRT/IMPT combination than IMRT alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document