Purpose: New techniques have been developed to deliver more conformal treatments to the craniospinal axis. One concern, however, is the widespread low dose delivered and implications for possible late effects. The purpose of this work is for the first time to validate the organ doses calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS), including out‐of‐field doses for a pediatric craniospinal treatment (CSI). Methods: A CSI plan prescribed to 23.4 Gy and a posterior fossa boost plan to 30.6 Gy (total dose 54.0 Gy) was developed for a pediatric anthropomorphic phantom representing a 13 yearold‐ child. For the CSI plan, the planning target volumes (PTV) consisted of the brain and spinal cord with 2 mm and 5 mm expansions, respectively. Organs at risk (OAR) were contoured and included in the plan optimization. The plans were delivered on a helical tomotherapy unit. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were used to measure the dose at 54 positions within the PTV and OARs. Results: For the CSI treatment, the mean percent difference between TPS dose calculations and measurements was 5% for the PTV and 10% for the OARs. For the boost, the average was 3% for the PTV. The percent difference for the OARs, which lie outside the field and received a small fraction of the prescription dose, varied from 15% to 200%. However in terms of absolute dose, the average difference between measurement and TPS per treatment Gy was 2 cGy/Gy and 3 mGy/Gy for the CSI and boost plans, respectively. Conclusion: There was good agreement between doses calculated by the TPS and measurements for the CSI treatment. Higher percent differences were observed for out‐of‐field doses in the boost plan, but absolute dose differences were very small compared to the prescription dose. These findings can help in the estimation of late effects after radiotherapy for pediatric patients.
Purpose: To report cranio‐spinal irradiation (CSI) planning experience, compare dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency with Tomotherapy from different institutions, and to investigate effect of planning parameters on plan quality and treatment time. Methods: Clinical helical tomotherapy IMRT plans for thirty‐nine CSI cases from three academic institutions were retrospectively evaluated. The planning parameters: field width (FW), pitch, modulation factor (MF), and achieved dosimetric endpoints were cross‐compared. A fraction‐dose‐delivery‐timing index (FDTI), defined as treatment time per fraction dose per PTV length, was utilized to evaluate plan delivery efficiency. A lower FDTI indicates higher delivery efficiency. We studied the correlation between planning quality, treatment time and planning parameters by grouping the plans under specific planning parameters. Additionally, we created new plans using 5cm jaw for a subset of plans that used 2.5cm jaw to exam if treatment efficiency can be improved without sacrificing plan quality. Results: There were significant dosimetric differences for organ at risks (OARs) among different institutions (A,B,C). Using the lowest average MF (1.9±0.4) and 5cm field width, C had the highest lung, heart, kidney, liver mean doses and maximum doses for lens. Using the same field width of 5cm, but higher MF (2.6±0.6), B had lower doses to the OARs in the thorax and abdomen area. Most of A's plans were planned with 2.5cm jaw, the plans yielded better PTV coverage, higher OAR doses and slightly shorter FDTI compared to institution B. The replanned 5cm jaw plans achieved comparable PTV coverage and OARs sparing, while saving up to 44.7% treatment time. Conclusion: Plan quality and delivery efficiency could vary significantly in CSI planning on Tomotheapy due to choice of different planning parameters. CSI plans using a 5cm jaw, with proper selection of pitch and MF, can achieve comparable/ better plan quality with shorter delivery time compared to 2.5cm jaw plans.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.