Organ motion is a substantial concern in the treatment of thoracic tumours using radiotherapy. A number of technologies have evolved in order to address this both during computed tomography (CT) imaging and radiation delivery. This review paper investigates the various technologies which have been developed in the field of CT scanning as well as their accuracy, cost and the implications of their clinical implementation. The scanning modalities covered include: slow CT, breath hold CT, gated CT and retrospectively correlated CT (4DCT). It was found that there are advantages and drawbacks to each of the mentioned techniques relating to patient dose, scan time, extra equipment and workload. Also some scanning techniques are only compatible with certain treatment modalities which would further influence the decision as to which technologies to implement.
Organ motion is a substantial concern in the treatment of thoracic tumours using radiotherapy. A number of technologies have evolved in order to address this concern in both the fields of CT imaging and radiation delivery. This review paper investigates the technologies which have been developed for the delivery of radiotherapy as well as the accuracy and workload implications of their use. Treatment techniques investigated include: breath hold, breath gating, robotic compensation and MLC manipulation. Each technique has its own advantages and drawbacks in regards to accuracy, treatment time, linac alterations and workload. Further, some treatment techniques have specific requirements for what kind of CT scans needs to be used in the planning process. This, along with the aforementioned considerations, could influence the decision as to implement some of these treatment techniques in the clinic.
BackgroundLow risk prostate cancers are commonly treated with low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy involving I-125 seeds. The implementation of a ‘live-planning’ technique at the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) in 2007 enabled the completion of the whole procedure (i.e. scanning, planning and implant) in one sitting. ‘Live-planning’ has the advantage of a more reliable delivery of the planned treatment compared to the ‘traditional pre-plan’ technique (where patient is scanned and planned in the weeks prior to implant). During live planning, the actual implanted needle positions are updated real-time on the treatment planning system and the dosimetry is automatically recalculated. The aim of this investigation was to assess the differences and clinical relevance between the planned dosimetry and the updated real-time implant dosimetry.MethodsA number of 162 patients were included in this dosimetric study. A paired t-test was performed on the D90, V100, V150 and V200 target parameters and the differences between the planned and implanted dose distributions were analysed. Similarly, dosimetric differences for the organs at risk (OAR) were also evaluated.ResultsSmall differences between the primary dosimetric parameters for the target were found. Still, the incidence of hotspots was increased with approximately 20% for V200. Statistically significant increases were observed in the doses delivered to the OAR between the planned and implanted data; however, these increases were consistently below 3% thus probably without clinical consequences.ConclusionsThe current study assessed the accuracy of prostate implants with I-125 seeds when compared to initial plans. The results confirmed the precision of the implant technique which RAH has in place. Nevertheless, geographical misses, anatomical restrictions and needle displacements during implant can have repercussions for centres without live-planning option if dosimetric changes are not taken into consideration.
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.