Dominique P Huyskens | PubMed Health

PubMed2007

The use of magnetic sensors to monitor moderate deep inspiration breath hold during breast irradiation with dynamic MLC compensators.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To reduce the dose to the heart during left breast irradiation, a moderate deep breath hold technique (MDIBH) was introduced. Originally, verification of the MDIBH was performed with portal images acquired in movie loop during the treatment delivery. However, this verification method is not compatible with the use of dynamic MLC compensation, recently introduced because of its often superior dose distribution. Magnetic sensors were evaluated as an additional/alternative method to monitor the breath hold. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a first phase, the reproducibility of MDIBH for breast patients was evaluated by investigating for 19 patients the set-up errors derived from portal images in cine loop acquisition during MDIBH. In a second phase, for 10 patients, the breathing curves recorded by magnetic sensors were used to monitor beam-on and beam-off while portal images were simultaneously recorded in movie loop. In a third phase, breast patients treated with dynamic MLC compensation were trained for MDIBH and monitored with magnetic sensors. RESULTS: The interfraction reproducibility of MDIBH for the initial 19 patients was recorded: the mean set-up error, the systematic and the random deviations are all smaller than 4mm in the anterior-posterior direction and in the cranio-caudal direction and smaller than 2 degrees along the rotation axis. Magnetic sensors provided a reproducible breathing curve: while the mean amplitude recorded for 10 patients varied substantially between patients, the individual standard deviation of the amplitude for each session was smaller than 3mm. For these 10 patients, the intrafraction set-up variation between the first portal image of two consecutive breath holds and the intra-breath hold set-up variation between the first and last portal image of each breath hold is smaller than 2mm in the anterior-posterior direction, smaller than 3mm in the cranio-caudal direction and smaller than 1.5 degrees along the rotation axis. CONCLUSION: Using magnetic sensors to record the breathing curve of left breast patients in MDIBH, a verification method was developed, suitable for combining MDIBH with dynamic MLC compensation.

Breast Neoplasms↗

PubMed2006

Testing of the analytical anisotropic algorithm for photon dose calculation.

The analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) was implemented in the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system to replace the single pencil beam (SPB) algorithm for the calculation of dose distributions for photon beams. AAA was developed to improve the dose calculation accuracy, especially in heterogeneous media. The total dose deposition is calculated as the superposition of the dose deposited by two photon sources (primary and secondary) and by an electron contamination source. The photon dose is calculated as a three-dimensional convolution of Monte-Carlo precalculated scatter kernels, scaled according to the electron density matrix. For the configuration of AAA, an optimization algorithm determines the parameters characterizing the multiple source model by optimizing the agreement between the calculated and measured depth dose curves and profiles for the basic beam data. We have combined the acceptance tests obtained in three different departments for 6, 15, and 18 MV photon beams. The accuracy of AAA was tested for different field sizes (symmetric and asymmetric) for open fields, wedged fields, and static and dynamic multileaf collimation fields. Depth dose behavior at different source-to-phantom distances was investigated. Measurements were performed on homogeneous, water equivalent phantoms, on simple phantoms containing cork inhomogeneities, and on the thorax of an anthropomorphic phantom. Comparisons were made among measurements, AAA, and SPB calculations. The optimization procedure for the configuration of the algorithm was successful in reproducing the basic beam data with an overall accuracy of 3%, 1 mm in the build-up region, and 1%, 1 mm elsewhere. Testing of the algorithm in more clinical setups showed comparable results for depth dose curves, profiles, and monitor units of symmetric open and wedged beams below dmax. The electron contamination model was found to be suboptimal to model the dose around dmax, especially for physical wedges at smaller source to phantom distances. For the asymmetric field verification, absolute dose difference of up to 4% were observed for the most extreme asymmetries. Compared to the SPB, the penumbra modeling is considerably improved (1%, 1 mm). At the interface between solid water and cork, profiles show a better agreement with AAA. Depth dose curves in the cork are substantially better with AAA than with SPB. Improvements are more pronounced for 18 MV than for 6 MV. Point dose measurements in the thoracic phantom are mostly within 5%. In general, we can conclude that, compared to SPB, AAA improves the accuracy of dose calculations. Particular progress was made with respect to the penumbra and low dose regions. In heterogeneous materials, improvements are substantial and more pronounced for high (18 MV) than for low (6 MV) energies.

Algorithms↗