SU-E-T-802: Verification of Implanted Cardiac Pacemaker Doses in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: Dose Prediction Accuracy and Reduction Effect of a Lead Sheet

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (6Part25) ◽  
pp. 3522-3522
Author(s):  
J Lee ◽  
J Chung
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Prediction Accuracy ◽  
Cardiac Pacemaker ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Dose Prediction ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Reduction Effect ◽  
Lead Sheet

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.

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