To achieve a good clinical outcome in radiotherapy treatment, a certain accuracy in the dose delivered to the patient is required. Therefore, it is necessary to keep the uncertainty in each of the steps of the process inside some acceptable values, which implies as low a global uncertainty as possible. The work reported here focused on the uncertainty evaluation of absorbed dose to water in the routine calibration for clinical beams in the range of energies used in external‐beam radiotherapy. With this aim, we considered various uncertainty components (corrected electrometer reading, calibration factor, beam quality correction factor, and reference conditions) associated with beam calibration. Results show a typical uncertainty in the determination of absorbed dose to water during beam calibration of approximately 1.3% for photon beams and 1.5% for electron beams (k=1 in both cases) when the ND,w formalism is used and kQ,Q0 is calculated theoretically. These values may vary depending on the uncertainty provided by the standards laboratory for calibration factor, which is shown in the work. For primary standards based on clinical linear accelerator beam energies, the uncertainty in this step of the process could be placed close to 1.0%. We also discuss the possibility of an uncertainty reduction with the adoption of the absorbed dose to water formalism as compared with the air kerma formalism.PACS numbers: 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Hv

No abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the gantry angle and multileaf collimator (MLC) gap error‐detection threshold of a diode helical array with an inserted microionization chamber in order to use this device for the pretreatment quality assurance (QA) of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments. Implications on the dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) of the patient treatments will also be considered for the establishment of a QA protocol with a reasonable tolerance level. Three dynamic IMRT HN (head and neck) and prostate treatments were studied. Random and systematic variations of gantry angle and systematic errors in MLC gap width of the clinical treatments were analyzed in order to establish the detection sensitivity of the array. The associated clinical significance was studied introducing the same errors in the treatment plan based on the patients' computed tomography (CT) and calculating the corresponding DVHs. The Gamma (3%/3 mm) presented a 4% variation in failure rate for a rotation error of 1° for both types of treatment. Both systematic and random errors in gantry rotation angle have little effect on the patients' DVHs. MLC gap width errors of 1 mm and 2 mm in the prostate treatments imply a mean variation in isocenter‐measured absorbed dose of 2.1% and 4.1%, respectively. In the case of HN, these errors entail a change in measured isocenter dose of 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively. The variation observed in the DVHs of the patients was, basically, a global displacement of the curves proportional to the isocenter dose variation caused by the gap width error. According to the array sensitivity to the analyzed errors and its implication in patient DVHs, a tolerance of 95% point passing rate for the gamma criterion 3%/2 mm and an agreement of 2% in isocenter absolute dose have been established as tolerance criteria for our pretreatment IMRT QA protocol.PACS number: 87.56.Fc

No abstract

The two groups achieved similar levels of pain control in supine, seated and standing positions. Quality of life also improved in both groups. However, the higher dose (8 Gy dose) in combination with zoledronic acid is associated with a longer period without skeletal events.

No abstract

SUMMARYThis paper presents the summary application of an adaptive predictive control system (APCS) to the control and optimization of the processes in a coal power station. The results obtained, corresponding to a Research and Development project at the Pasajes de San Juan power station, which belongs to the company Iberdrola, demonstrate the suitability of the APCS application in this field as well as the important benefits that may be derived from it.

OBJECTIVESNumerous commercial assays are available for measuring total and free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in serum. These assays can be referenced to different laboratory standards, and interassay variability occurs. Patients and physicians might be affected by the variability between PSA assays that results from the use of different PSA standards. METHODSWe prospectively compared the free and total PSA measurements obtained using two commercially available PSA assays in 103 participants from a prostate cancer screening program in Caracas, Venezuela. We recommended biopsy to men with a total PSA level of 3 to 10 ng/mL and a free/total PSA ratio of 20% or less with either assay. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, and concordance index between the two assays to assess the effects of interassay variability on the cancer detection rate and clinical outcomes. RESULTSAlthough the total PSA results were similar between the assays, the free PSA level was significantly greater with one assay. Therefore, the free/total PSA ratio was discordant between the two assays, resulting in different biopsy recommendations and cancer detection rates. CONCLUSIONSUsing a free/total PSA ratio of 20% or less as the threshold for biopsy, the differences in assay sensitivity and specificity for detecting prostate cancer are significant. Commercially available assays for PSA and its derivatives are not necessarily interchangeable, and these differences might lead to different clinical outcomes. When using free and total PSA measurements to make clinical decisions, patients and physicians should be aware of the potential standardization bias and which assay is being used. UROLOGY 69: 1143-1146, 2007.