Radiotherapy dose calculation requires accurate Computed Tomography (CT) imaging while tissue delineation may necessitate the use of contrast agents (CA). Acquiring these two sets is a common practice in radiotherapy. This study aims to evaluate the effect of CA on the dose calculations. Two hundred and twenty-six volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patients that had planning CT with contrast (CCT) and non-contrast CT (NCCT) of different cancer sites (e.g., brain, head, and neck (H&N), chest, abdomen, and pelvis) were evaluated. Treatment plans were recalculated using CCT, then compared to NCCT. The variation in Hounsfield units (HU) and dose distributions for critical structures and target volumes were analyzed using mean HU, mean and maximum relative dose values, D2%, D98%, and 3D gamma analysis. HU variations were statistically significant for most structures. However, this was not clinically significant as the difference in mean HU values was within 30 HU for soft tissue and 50 HU for lungs. Variation in target volumes’ D2% and D98% were insignificant for all sites except brain and nasopharynx. Dose maximum differences were within 2% for the majority of critical structures and target volumes. 3D gamma analysis results revealed that majority of plans satisfied the 2% and 2 mm criteria. CCT may be acquired for VMAT radiotherapy planning purposes instead of NCCT, since there is no clinically significant difference in dose calculations based on either image set.
Orthovoltage x-rays are useful for the treatment of some superficial cancers and benign conditions. An orthovoltage machine has numerous different applicators (open and closed ended) and energies that require measurements for all different applicator-energy combinations in addition to patient-specific Standoff Factor (SF) measurements, which is arduous and time-consuming. This study aimed to introduce a simple, accurate, and practical method to calculate SF. This factor is usually calculated based on the inverse square law (ISL), which is not an accurate approximation for closed-ended applicators. In this work, we introduced a simple, accurate, and practical method to calculate SF that is valid for both open-ended and closed-ended applicators. Xstrahl 300 therapy unit was used with two sets of Open-ended and Closed-ended applicators with energies up to 300 kVp. The proposed SF empirical formula and ISL were evaluated against the measurements. For open-ended applicators, the maximum Percentage Differences (PD) in calculated SF using the suggested formula and ISL were 2.2% and 3.4% relative to the measurement, respectively. For closed-ended applicators, the maximum PD was 3.2% and -8.1% using the suggested formula and ISL relative to the measurement, respectively. The results demonstrated satisfactory accuracy compared to the measured standoff factor values and superior accuracy when compared to the commonly used ISL method, particularly for closed-ended applicators. The study concluded that SF calculated using the proposed formula was in agreement with measured SF at clinically relevant standoff distances for all energies and applicators combinations. Thus, we recommend using this proposed formula for SF calculations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.