1. bookVolume 65 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1508-5791
First Published
25 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Comparison of dose distributions in target areas and organs at risk in conformal and VMAT techniques and dose verifications with the use of thermoluminescence dosimetry

Published Online: 23 Oct 2020
Volume & Issue: Volume 65 (2020) - Issue 4 (December 2020)
Page range: 217 - 222
Received: 19 Nov 2019
Accepted: 27 Aug 2020
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1508-5791
First Published
25 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The aim of the present study is to compare dose distributions and their verification in target areas and organs at risk (OAR) in conformal and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. Proper verification procedures allow the removal of the major sources of errors, such as incorrect application of a planning system, its insufficient or cursory commissioning, as well as an erroneous interpretation of the obtained results. Three target areas (head and neck, chest, and pelvic) were selected and the treatment was delivered based on plans made using collapsed cone convolution and Monte Carlo algorithms with 6-MV photon beams, adopting conformal and VMAT techniques, respectively. All the plans were prepared for the anthropomorphic phantom. Dose measurements were performed with TL detectors made of LiF phosphor doped with magnesium and titanium (LiF:Mg,Ti). This paper presents the results of TL measurements and calculated doses, as well as their deviations from the treatment planning system (TPS) in the three planned target areas. It was established that the algorithms subject to analysis differ, particularly in dose calculations for highly inhomogeneous regions (OAR). Aside from the need to achieve the dose intended for the tumour, the choice of irradiation technique in teleradiotherapy should be dictated by the degree of exposure to individual critical organs during irradiation. While nothing deviated beyond the bounds of what is acceptable by international regulatory bodies in plans from TPS, clinically one must be more cautious with the OAR areas.

Keywords

1. Li, J. -S., Pawlicki, T., Deng, J., Jiang, S. -B., Mok, E., & Ma, C. -M. (2000). Validation of a Monte Carlo dose calculation tool for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys. Med. Biol., 45(10), 2969–2985. DOI: S0031-9155(00)12262-6.10.1088/0031-9155/45/10/31611049183Search in Google Scholar

2. Oelkfe, U., & Scholz, C. (2006). Dose calculation algorithms. In W. Schlegel, T. Bortfeld, & A. -L. Grosu (Eds.), New technologies in radiation oncology (pp.187–196). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

3. Wu, V. -W., Tse, T. -K., Ho, C. -L., & Yeung, E. -C. (2013). A comparison between anisotropic analytical and multigrid superposition dose calculation algorithms in radiotherapy treatment planning. Med. Phys., 38(2), 209–214. DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.02.001.10.1016/j.meddos.2013.02.00123535249Search in Google Scholar

4. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2004). Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer. Vienna: IAEA. (TRS No 430).Search in Google Scholar

5. Rogers, D. -W. -O., & Bielajew, A. -F. (1990). Monte Carlo techniques of electron and photon transport for radiation dosimetry. In K. -R. Kase, B. -E. Bjarngard, & F. -H. Attix (Eds.), The dosimetry of ionizing radiation (pp. 427–540). Canada: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

6. Ahnesjö, A. (1989). Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Med. Phys., 16(4), 577–592. DOI: 10.1118/1.596360.10.1118/1.5963602770632Search in Google Scholar

7. Krieger, T., & Sauer, O. -A. (2005). Monte Carlo versus pencil-beam-/collapsed-cone-dose calculation in a heterogeneous multi-layer phantom. Phys. Med. Biol., 50(5), 859–868. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/010.10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/01015798260Search in Google Scholar

8. Mijnheer, B., Olszewska, A., Fiorino, C., & Welleweerd, H. (2004). Quality assurance of treatment planning systems, practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams. Brussels: European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology.Search in Google Scholar

9. Haertl, P. M., Pohl, F., Weidner, K., Groeger, Ch., Koelbl, O., & Dobler, B. (2013). Treatment of left sided breast cancer for a patient with funnel chest: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs. 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Med. Dosim., 38(1), 1–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2012.04.003.10.1016/j.meddos.2012.04.00322727550Search in Google Scholar

10. Xu, Y., Deng, W., Yang, S., Li, P., Kong, Y., Tian, Y., Liao, Z., & Chen, M. (2017). Dosimetric comparison of the helical tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy and fixed-field intensity-modulated radio-therapy for stage IIB-IIIB nonsmall cell lung cancer. Sci. Rep., 7(1), 14863. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14629-w.10.1038/s41598-017-14629-w566586529093491Search in Google Scholar

11. Abo-Madyan, Y., Aziz, M. H., Aly, M. M. O. M., Schneider, F., Sperk, E., Clausen, S., Giordano, F. A., Herskind, C., Steil, V., Wenz, F., & Glatting, G. (2014). Second cancer risk after 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT for breast cancer. Radiother. Oncol., 110(3), 471–476. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.12.002.10.1016/j.radonc.2013.12.00224444525Search in Google Scholar

12. Rehman, J. U., Isa, M., Ahmad, N., Nasar, G., Asghar, H. M., Gilani, Z. A., Chow, J. C., Afzal, M., & Ibbott, G. S. (2018). Dosimetric, radiobiological and secondary cancer risk evaluation in head-and-neck three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and volu-metric modulated arc therapy: A phantom study. J. Med. Phys., 43(2), 129–135. DOI: 10.4103/jmp. JMP_106_17.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo