Comparison of Sliding Window and Field-In-Field Techniques For Tangential Whole Breast Irradiation Using The Halcyon and Synergy Agility Systems

Richter, Anne; Wegener, Sonja; Breuer, Kathrin; Razinskas, Gary; Weick, Stefan; Exner, Florian; Bratengeier, Klaus; FLENTJE, M; Sauer, Otto A.; Polat, Bülent

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-809970/v1

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our MUV was performed for some plans of the spine and whole brain, which were evaluated using portal dosimetry (PD; Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto), 27,28 and then delivered to patients in the clinic. The calculated and measured fluences were compared in the PD workspace incorporated in Eclipse.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Independent monitor unit verification for dynamic flattened beam plans on the Halcyon linac

Kubo

Tamura

Matsumoto

et al. 2022

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Independent monitor unit verification (MUV) methods for the dynamic beam‐flattening (DBF) technique have not been established. The purpose of this study was to clarify whether MU values for the DBF technique can be calculated using in‐air and in‐water output ratios ( S c and S cp ). S c and S cp were measured in the DBF mode, and the phantom scatter factor ( S p ) was calculated. The difference between calculated and planned MUs with square and rectangle fields and clinical plans for different treatment sites was also evaluated. S c values for the 4 × 4 to 24 × 24 cm 2 fields of the distal multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) layer at 2‐cm intervals were 0.887, 0.815, 0.715, 0.716, 0.611, 0.612, 0.511, 0.373, 0.374, 0.375, and 0.374, respectively. No collimator exchange effect was observed. S c also depends slightly on the field size of the distal MLC layer. If the distal‐MLC‐layered field size was less than 20% of the corresponding MLC sequence size in the proximal MLC layer, S c was affected by >1%, which was compensated using a correction factor (CF). S p increased as the field sizes of the MLC sequence and distal MLC leaves increased. MUs calculated using measured S c , S p , and CF for square and rectangle fields agreed with planned MUs within ±1.2%. A larger difference (−1.5%) between calculated and planned MUs was observed for clinical plans, whereas differences in MUs were within 2 MU for most fields (56 out of 64 fields). MU calculation for the DBF technique can be performed with S c , S p , and CF for independent MUV.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%