PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the peripheral doses resulting from volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in cervical cancer radiotherapy.MethodsNine patients with cervical cancer had treatment planned with both VMAT and IMRT. A specially designed phantom was used for this study, with ion chambers placed at interest points approximating the position of the breast, thyroid, and lens. The peripheral doses at the phantom interest points were measured and compared between the VMAT and IMRT techniques.ResultsVMAT provides a potential dosimetric advantage compared with IMRT. The mean (± standard deviation) peripheral dose to the breast point for 1 fraction (2 Gy) during VMAT measured 5.13 ± 0.96 mGy, compared with 9.04 ± 1.50 mGy for IMRT. At the thyroid and lens interest points, the mean (± standard deviation) peripheral dose during VMAT was 2.19 ± 0.33 and 2.16 ± 0.28 mGy, compared with 7.07 ± 0.76 and 6.97 ± 0.91 mGy for IMRT, respectively. VMAT reduced the monitor units used by 28% and shortened the treatment delivery time by 54% compared with IMRT.ConclusionWhile the dosimetric results are similar for both techniques, VMAT results in a lower peripheral dose to the patient and reduces the monitor-unit usage and treatment delivery time compared with IMRT.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of different CBCT imaging monitor units (MUs), reconstruction slice thicknesses, and planning CT slice thicknesses on the positioning accuracy of a megavoltage cone‐beam computed tomography (MV‐CBCT) system in image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT) in head‐and‐neck patients. The MV‐CBCT system was a Siemens MVision, a commercial system integrated into the Siemens ONCOR linear accelerator. The positioning accuracy of the MV‐CBCT system was determined using an anthropomorphic phantom while varying the MV‐CBCT imaging MU, reconstruction slice thickness, and planning CT slice thickness. A total of 240 CBCT images from six head‐and‐neck patients who underwent intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment were acquired and reconstructed using different MV‐CBCT scanning protocols. The interfractional setup errors of the patients were retrospectively analyzed for different imaging MUs, reconstruction slice thicknesses, and planning CT slice thicknesses. Using the anthropomorphic phantom, the largest measured mean deviation component and standard deviation of the MVision in 3D directions were 1.3 and 1.0 mm, respectively, for different CBCT imaging MUs, reconstruction slice thicknesses, and planning CT slice thicknesses. The largest setup group system error (M), system error (∑), and random error (σ) from six head‐and‐neck patients were 0.6, 1.2, and 1.7 mm, respectively. No significant difference was found in the positioning accuracy of the MV‐CBCT system between the 5 and 8 MUs, and between the 1 and 3 mm reconstruction slice thicknesses. A thin planning CT slice thickness may achieve higher positioning precision using the phantom measurement, but no significant difference was found in clinical setup precision between the 1 and 3 mm planning CT slice thicknesses.PACS number: 87.55 ne

The growing use of cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) for IGRT has increased concerns over the additional radiation dose to patients. The in‐field dose of IGRT and the peripheral dose (PD) from kilovoltage CBCT (KV‐CBCT) imaging have been well quantified. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the peripheral dose from megavoltage CBCT (MV‐CBCT) imaging for nasopharyngeal carcinoma IGRT, to determine the correlation of peripheral dose with MU protocol and imaging field size, and to estimate out‐of‐field organ‐at‐risk (OAR) dose delivered to patients. Measurements of peripheral MV‐CBCT doses were made with a 0.65 cm3 ionization chamber placed inside in a specially designed phantom at various depths and distances from the imaging field edges. The peripheral dose at reference point inside the phantom was measured with the same ionization chamber to investigate the linearity between MUs used for MV‐CBCT imaging and the PD. The peripheral surface doses at the anterior, lateral, and posterior of the phantom at various distances from the imaging field edge were also measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Seven nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients were selected and scanned before treatment with head–neck protocol, and the peripheral surface doses were measured with TLDs placed on the anterior, lateral, and posterior surfaces at the axial plane of 15 cm distance from the field edge. The measured peripheral doses data in the phantom were utilized to estimate the peripheral OAR dose. Peripheral dose from MV‐CBCT imaging increased with increasing number of MUs used for imaging protocol and with increasing the imaging field size. The measured peripheral doses in the phantom decreased as distance from the imaging field edges increased. PD also decreased as the depth from the phantom surface increased. For the patient PD measurements, the anterior, lateral, and posterior surface doses of 15 cm distance from the field edge were 2.84×10−2, 1.01×10−2, and 0.78×10−2 cGy/MU, respectively. The lens, thyroid, breast, and ovary and testicle, which are outside the treatment and imaging fields, were estimated to receive peripheral OAR doses from MV‐CBCT imaging of 42.4×10−2, 11.9×10−2, 1.4×10−2, 1.0×10−2, and 0.5×10−2 cGy/MU, respectively. In conclusion, MV‐CBCT generates a peripheral dose beyond the edge of the MV‐CBCT scanning field that is of a similar order of magnitude to the peripheral dose from kV‐CBCT imaging. In clinic, using the smallest number of MUs allowable and reducing MV‐CBCT scanning field size without compromising acquired image quality is an effective method of reducing the peripheral OAR dose received by patients.PACS number: 89