PubMed · 9510040
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Stuschke, H Thames. 1998. Hyperfractionation: where do we stand?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8140(97)00181-3
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to reevaluate the dose nonuniformity of abutted fields defined using asymmetric collimators and one isocenter for treatment of the head and neck region. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Bilateral parallel-opposed fields abutted to the anterior field at one isocenter were implemented in the treatment of head and neck. The effect of digital display tolerance can produce dose nonuniformity at the junction of the abutted fields. The amount of dose nonuniformity was quantified using both mathematical summation of dose profiles and by direct measurement of doses at the junction of the two abutted fields. The dose nonuniformity was obtained by irradiating the superior part of a film using bilateral parallel-opposed fields and the inferior part by an anterior field with a gap or an overlap. Dose profiles were taken at the depth of maximum dose for the anterior field across the abutted fields. The dose nonuniformity was determined for the case where the asymmetric jaw was set at -2 mm, -1 mm, 0, +1 mm, and +2 mm from the beam central axis. RESULTS: The dose at the junction increases systematically as the abutment of the fields changes from a gap to an overlap. The dose nonuniformity with 1-mm gap and 1-mm overlap is about 15% underdose and overdose, respectively. CONCLUSION: Imperfect abutment of split fields due to digital display tolerance (+/-1 mm) of asymmetric collimator can cause an underdose or overdose of 15% of the delivered dose.
PURPOSE: The position of the parotid gland in relation to surrounding structures was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients with head and neck tumours were prospectively evaluated. Parotid position was determined using beam's eye views of CT images projected on simulator films. Distances between the different borders of the parotid gland and surrounding bony marks were quantitatively assessed. RESULTS: The parotid gland volume ranged from 12.9 to 46.4 cm(3). The distance between the cranial border of the parotid gland and the tuberculum anterior of the atlas ranged between 0.7 and 4.8 cm. The position of the parotid gland was unaffected by the angle of the mandible. CONCLUSIONS: The size and position of the parotid gland varies largely among patients. As the extent of radiation-induced salivary dysfunction depends on the volume of the gland tissue exposed, CT-based simulation of radiation fields is necessary.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In view of using portal images for exit dosimetry, an experimental study is performed of relative transit dose profiles at different distances behind patients (and phantoms) and of their relation to the exit dose profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Irregular, homogeneous polystyrene phantoms with a variable thickness to simulate head and neck (H&N) treatments (6-MV photon beam) are investigated by ionization chamber measurements performed close to the exit surface and at various distances behind the phantom (10, 20 and 30 cm). Similar measurements are performed for a rectangular phantom with large inhomogeneities (A1 and air). For one irregular homogeneous phantom and an irregular phantom containing an A1 inhomogeneity, ionization chamber measurements are performed at the exit surface, and a portal film image is taken at 30 cm behind the phantom. Portal films of a patient treated for a head and neck malignancy are evaluated for different air gaps behind the patient. RESULTS: For the irregular phantoms, deviations up to 15% and more are observed between the exit dose profile (along the shaped surface of the phantom) and the transit profile close to the phantom (perpendicular to the beam axis). There is, however, a good agreement--within 3%--between the exit profile and the transit profile at 30 cm. For the rectangular, inhomogeneous phantom, the deviation between the exit profile and the transit dose profile at 30 cm does not exceed 5%; transit dose profiles overestimate the exit dose for the air cavity and underestimate the dose for the A1 inhomogeneity. Measurements on portal films of a H&N patient for different air gaps confirm the order of magnitude of the difference observed between transit dose profiles close to the patient and transit dose profiles at some distance behind the patient. CONCLUSIONS: For 6-MV photon beam treatments with significant thickness variations (H&N), large variations (> 10%) are observed in transit dose profiles as a function of the air gap between the patient and the portal film. For this energy, a good agreement is found between the exit profile and the transit profile at about 30 cm behind the patient.