Biomedical subjects

Hamideh Alasti

Publications and source records attributed to Hamideh Alasti.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Patient dose from kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography imaging in radiation therapy.

Kilovoltage cone-beam computerized tomography (kV-CBCT) systems integrated into the gantry of linear accelerators can be used to acquire high-resolution volumetric images of the patient in the treatment position. Using on-line software and hardware, patient position can be determined accurately with a high degree of precision and, subsequently, set-up parameters can be adjusted to deliver the intended treatment. While the patient dose due to a single volumetric imaging acquisition is small compared to the therapy dose, repeated and daily image guidance procedures can lead to substantial dose to normal tissue. The dosimetric properties of a clinical CBCT system have been studied on an Elekta linear accelerator (Synergy RP, XVI system) and additional measurements performed on a laboratory system with identical geometry. Dose measurements were performed with an ion chamber and MOSFET detectors at the center, periphery, and surface of 30 and 16-cm-diam cylindrical shaped water phantoms, as a function of x-ray energy and longitudinal field-of-view (FOV) settings of 5,10,15, and 26 cm. The measurements were performed for full 360 degrees CBCT acquisition as well as for half-rotation scans for 120 kVp beams using the 30-cm-diam phantom. The dose at the center and surface of the body phantom were determined to be 1.6 and 2.3 cGy for a typical imaging protocol, using full rotation scan, with a technique setting of 120 kVp and 660 mAs. The results of our measurements have been presented in terms of a dose conversion factor fCBCT, expressed in cGy/R. These factors depend on beam quality and phantom size as well as on scan geometry and can be utilized to estimate dose for any arbitrary mAs setting and reference exposure rate of the x-ray tube at standard distance. The results demonstrate the opportunity to manipulate the scanning parameters to reduce the dose to the patient by employing lower energy (kVp) beams, smaller FOV, or by using half-rotation scan.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners.

Today, radiation therapy (RT) is moving toward increased radiation dose to the tumor as a result of 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), which have been made possible by advances in volumetric-based image planning with digital imaging systems such as computed tomography (CT). Treatment planning for such RT requires superior CT image quality. Our goal in this study was to evaluate and to compare the image quality of three unique CT simulation scanners available at our center for both single- and multiple-slice helical scanners. These scanners included a conventional 70-cm bore single-slice scanner (Philips Medical Systems), a large 85-cm bore single-slice scanner (Philips Medical Systems), and a 70-cm bore multislice scanner (GE Medical Systems). Image quality was evaluated in terms of image noise, low-contrast detectability (LCD), limiting spatial resolution (modulation transfer function), and slice thickness accuracy in accordance with guidelines set out by the AAPM. A commercially available Catphan phantom was used to characterize image quality for both axial and helical modes of scanning. We found that image quality was generally comparable for all scanners. Limiting spatial resolution and slice thickness accuracy were comparable for all three scanners for both scanning modes. The multislice unit was superior in terms of noise content, resulting in improved visualization of small, low-contrast objects, which is of significant clinical importance, particularly for soft tissue delineation. In addition, the multislice unit optimizes volume coverage speed and longitudinal resolution without compromising image quality, a significant advantage for the radiation oncology environment.

Equipment Design↗

PubMed2004

On-line aSi portal imaging of implanted fiducial markers for the reduction of interfraction error during conformal radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma.

PURPOSE: An on-line system to ensure accuracy of daily setup and therapy of the prostate has been implemented with no equipment modification required. We report results and accuracy of patient setup using this system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiopaque fiducial markers were implanted into the prostate before radiation therapy. Lateral digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were obtained from planning CT data. Before each treatment fraction, a lateral amorphous silicon (aSi) portal image was acquired and the position of the fiducial markers was compared to the DRRs using chamfer matching. Couch translation only was used to account for marker position displacements, followed by a second lateral portal image to verify isocenter position. Residual displacement data for the aSi and previous portal film systems were compared. RESULTS: This analysis includes a total of 239 portal images during treatment in 17 patients. Initial prostate center of mass (COM) displacements in the superior, inferior, anterior, and posterior directions were a maximum of 7 mm, 9 mm, 10 mm and 11 mm respectively. After identification and correction, prostate COM displacements were <3 mm in all directions. The therapists found it simple to match markers 88% of the time using this system. Treatment delivery times were in the order of 9 min for patients requiring isocenter adjustment and 6 min for those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: This system is technically possible to implement and use as part of an on-line correction protocol and does not require a longer than standard daily appointment time at our center with the current action limit of 3 mm. The system is commercially available and is more efficient and user-friendly than portal film analysis. It provides the opportunity to identify and accommodate interfraction organ motion and may also permit the use of smaller margins during conformal prostate radiotherapy. Further integration of the system such as remote table control would improve efficiency.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

A randomized trial of supine vs. prone positioning in patients undergoing escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal treatment position for patients receiving radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer has been a source of controversy. To resolve this issue, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the effects of supine and prone positioning on organ motion, positioning errors, and dose to critical organs during escalated dose conformal irradiation for localized prostate cancer and patient and therapist satisfaction with setup technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty eight patients were randomized to commence treatment immobilized in the supine or prone position and were subsequently changed to the alternate positioning for the latter half of their treatment. Patients underwent CT simulation and conformal radiotherapy planning and treatment in both positions. The clinical target volume encompassed the prostate gland. Alternate day lateral port films were compared to corresponding simulator radiographs to measure the isocentre positioning errors (IPE). Prostate motion (PM) and total positioning error (TPE) were measured from the same films by the displacements of three implanted fiducial markers. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) for the two treatment positions were compared at the 95, 80 and 50% dose (D%) levels. The patients and radiation therapists completed weekly questionnaires regarding patient comfort and ease of setup. RESULTS: Seven patients, who started in the supine position, subsequently refused prone position and received their whole treatment supine. Small bowel in the treatment volume, not present in the supine position, prevented one patient from being treated prone. PM in anterior posterior direction was statistically significantly less in the supine position (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in superior inferior PM for the two treatment positions. No statistically significant difference between supine and prone positioning was observed in isocentre positioning error (IPE) or total positioning error (TPE) due to a policy of daily pre-treatment correction. However, more pre-treatment corrections were required for patients in the prone position. The DVH analysis demonstrated larger volumes of the bladder wall, rectal wall and small bowel within the D95, D80 and D50% when comparing the planning target volumes (PTVs) actually treated for prone positioning. When the prone PTV was expanded to account for the greater PM encountered in that position, a statistically significant difference (P<0.007) was observed in favour of the supine position at all dose levels. In the prone position, four patients had small bowel within the 60 Gray (Gy) isodose and in the supine position, no patients had small bowel in the 60 or 38Gy volumes. Supine position was significantly more comfortable for the patients and setup was significantly easier for the radiation therapists. The median patient comfort score was 0.79 (Standard deviation (SD) 0.03) supine and 0.45 (SD 0.05) prone (P<0.001) The therapist convenience of setup was 0.80 (SD 0.016) supine and 0.54 (SD 0.025) prone (P<0.005). No statistically significant difference was seen for the other parameters studied. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated significantly less PM in the supine treatment position. There was no difference for either treatment position in IPE or TPE, however, more pre-treatment corrections were required in the prone position. Prone position required a larger PTV with resulting increased dose to critical organs. There were statistically significant improvements at all dose levels for small bowel, rectal wall and bladder wall doses in the supine position once corrections were made for differences in organ motion. Linear analogue scores of patient comfort and radiation therapist convenience demonstrated statistically significant improvement in favour of the supine position. Supine positioning has been adopted as the standard for conformal prostatic irradiation at our centre.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

A dose-volume histogram analysis of the seminal vesicles in men treated with conformal radiotherapy to 'prostate alone'.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is no consensus on whether the seminal vesicles should be included in the clinical target volume (CTV) for radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer. To inform the debate, we have undertaken a dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis of the seminal vesicles in patients treated with escalated dose conformal radiation to 'prostate alone'. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients receiving conformal radiation to the prostate, to a dose of 75.6 Gy in 42 daily fractions, were studied. The CTV was defined as the prostate only, and the planning target volume (PTV) was defined by a 10 mm margin, except posteriorly where the margin was 7 mm. DVHs were calculated for the entire seminal vesicles, and for 6 mm segments through the seminal vesicles. RESULTS: Incorporating a correction for organ motion, the D90 (minimum dose received by 90% of the volume of interest) for the most inferior 6 mm volume of the seminal vesicles (SV1) ranged from 25 to 70 Gy, and the percentage volume of SV1 receiving 50 Gy ranged from 47-100%. Using a D90 of 50 Gy as a cut-off, eight of the 25 patients had unacceptably low-dose coverage of SV1. CONCLUSIONS: Escalated dose conformal radiation to the 'prostate alone' does not ensure adequate dose coverage of even the most inferior 6 mm of the seminal vesicles. We consider such treatment acceptable in patients at low risk of seminal vesicle involvement (T1/2ab, Gleason < or = 7, PSA < 10 ng/ml). In higher risk patients, if it is deemed necessary to treat the possibility of sub-clinical seminal vesicle involvement, this should be reflected in the definition of the CTV.

Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation↗