No abstract

No abstract

To develop a quality assurance (QA) program for the On-Board Imager (OBI) system and to summarize the results of these QA tests over extended periods from multiple institutions. Both the radiographic and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) mode of operation have been evaluated. The QA programs from four institutions have been combined to generate a series of tests for evaluating the performance of the On-Board Imager. The combined QA program consists of three parts: (1) safety and functionality, (2) geometry, and (3) image quality. Safety and functionality tests evaluate the functionality of safety features and the clinical operation of the entire system during the tube warm-up. Geometry QA verifies the geometric accuracy and stability of the OBI/CBCT hardware/software. Image quality QA monitors spatial resolution and contrast sensitivity of the radiographic images. Image quality QA for CBCT includes tests for Hounsfield Unit (HU) linearity, HU uniformity, spatial linearity, and scan slice geometry, in addition. All safety and functionality tests passed on a daily basis. The average accuracy of the OBI isocenter was better than 1.5 mm with a range of variation of less than 1 mm over 8 months. The average accuracy of arm positions in the mechanical geometry QA was better than 1 mm, with a range of variation of less than 1 mm over 8 months. Measurements of other geometry QA tests showed stable results within tolerance throughout the test periods. Radiographic contrast sensitivity ranged between 2.2% and 3.2% and spatial resolution ranged between 1.25 and 1.6 lp/mm. Over four months the CBCT images showed stable spatial linearity, scan slice geometry, contrast resolution (1%; <7 mm disk) and spatial resolution (>6 lp/cm). The HU linearity was within +/-40 HU for all measurements. By combining test methods from multiple institutions, we have developed a comprehensive, yet practical, set of QA tests for the OBI system. Use of the tests over extended periods show that the OBI system has reliable mechanical accuracy and stable image quality. Nevertheless, the tests have been useful in detecting performance deficits in the OBI system that needed recalibration. It is important that all tests are performed on a regular basis.

Separate optimization of the DLG parameter using end-to-end tests must be performed to ensure dosimetric accuracy in the modeling of the rounded leaf ends for the Eclipse treatment planning system. The difference in leaf gap modeling versus physical leaf gap dimensions is more pronounced in the more recent versions of Eclipse for both the HDMLC and the Millennium MLC. Once properly commissioned and tested using a methodology based on treatment plan verification, Eclipse is able to accurately model radiation dose delivered for SBRT treatments using the TrueBeam STx.

To facilitate the use of biological outcome modeling for treatment planning, an exponential function is introduced as a simpler equivalent to the Lyman formula for calculating normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). The single parameter of the exponential function is chosen to reproduce the Lyman calculation to within approximately 0.3%, and thus enable easy conversion of data contained in empirical fits of Lyman parameters for organs at risk (OARs). Organ parameters for the new formula are given in terms of Lyman model m and TD(50), and conversely m and TD(50) are expressed in terms of the parameters of the new equation. The role of the Lyman volume-effect parameter n is unchanged from its role in the Lyman model. For a non-homogeneously irradiated OAR, an equation relates d(ref), n, v(eff) and the Niemierko equivalent uniform dose (EUD), where d(ref) and v(eff) are the reference dose and effective fractional volume of the Kutcher-Burman reduction algorithm (i.e. the LKB model). It follows in the LKB model that uniform EUD irradiation of an OAR results in the same NTCP as the original non-homogeneous distribution. The NTCP equation is therefore represented as a function of EUD. The inverse equation expresses EUD as a function of NTCP and is used to generate a table of EUD versus normal tissue complication probability for the Emami-Burman parameter fits as well as for OAR parameter sets from more recent data.

No abstract

During a 21-year period, 66 patients with uterine sarcomas were treated at California Medical Center. Histological diagnoses were mixed mesodermal sarcoma in 32 patients (48%), leiomyosarcoma in 24 (36%), and endometrial stromal sarcoma in 10 (15%) patients. The majority of patients (73%) had Stage I tumors. The treatment consisted of surgery alone in 27 (41%), surgery in combination with radiation therapy in 36 (55%), and radiation therapy alone in three (4%) patients. The overall 1-, 2-, and 5-year actuarial survival was 74%, 57%, and 38%, respectively. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year actuarial survival for the 27 surgery alone patients was 73%, 50%, and 25%, which compared with 75%, 61%, and 44% for the 36 surgery plus radiation therapy patients (P = 0.12). The disease-free survival was better for the surgery plus radiation therapy patients, as compared with the surgery alone group (38% vs. 18% at 5 years, P = 0.081). The 5-year survival by histology was 70% for the 10 endometrial stromal sarcoma patients, 40% for the 24 leiomyosarcoma patients, and 23% for the 32 mesodermal sarcoma patients (P = 0.064). As expected, survival depended on the stage of disease (P less than 0.0001). Treatment failure was observed in 35 (53%) patients, which included 9 (14%) with failure in the pelvis. There was no difference in the incidence of failure among patients in the three treatment groups and also in the three histologic groups. There was, however, a significant difference in the incidence of pelvic failure between surgery alone and surgery plus radiation therapy patients. In the 27 surgery alone patients, nine (33%) relapsed in the pelvis, whereas none of the 36 surgery plus radiation therapy patients had locoregional failure, P less than 0.0001. Adjuvant radiation therapy is an important treatment in the management of patients with sarcoma of the uterus.

No abstract