2018
DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rry042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor

Abstract: Several studies have reported changes in dose distribution and delivery time based on the value of specific planning parameters [field width (FW), pitch, and modulation factor (MF)] in tomotherapy. However, the variation in the parameters between different facilities is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine standard values of the above parameters for cases of head and neck cancer (HNC) and prostate cancer (PC) in Japan. In this survey, a web-based questionnaire was sent to 48 facilities performin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, this MF is reasonable and lower than that recommended in a previous study [33]. In contrast, when the DTF was within the range of 1.2-1.3 and 1.5-1.6 for head and neck and lung cases, respectively, the MF reached 3.0, which is recognized as a much higher value for head and neck plans [34]. A higher MF leads to greater plan complexity in tomotherapy, potentially leading to unacceptable dose delivery [22,23].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
“…Nevertheless, this MF is reasonable and lower than that recommended in a previous study [33]. In contrast, when the DTF was within the range of 1.2-1.3 and 1.5-1.6 for head and neck and lung cases, respectively, the MF reached 3.0, which is recognized as a much higher value for head and neck plans [34]. A higher MF leads to greater plan complexity in tomotherapy, potentially leading to unacceptable dose delivery [22,23].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
“…This relationship has the potential to improve sparing of important anatomical structures. In clinical practice, the MF is known to show marked variation between institutions, 23 but in numerous previous reports, the MF in relation to HS-WBRT was taken to be 3.0, 7,8,13 because the results of the RTOG0933 study were based on a jaw width of 1 cm and an MF of 3.0. 24 In the present study, the dose parameters showed no statistically significant changes with MF reduction from 3.0 to 2.2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dose to the region of interest (ROI) is presented in Table 1 (Figure 2 , 3 ). Regarding the treatment plan parameters, a dynamic field width of 5 cm, pitch of 0.25, and a modulator factor (MF) of 2.0 were used [ 5 ]. A 3D conformal plan was also developed in order to reduce the treatment time, but dosimetric goals could not be achieved.…”
Section: Case Presentationmentioning
confidence: 99%