bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Evaluation of the systematic error in using 3D dose calculation in scanning beam proton therapy for lung cancer
Authors: Li Heng , Liu Wei , Park Peter , Matney Jason , Liao Zhongxing , Chang Joe , Zhang Xiaodong , Li Yupeng , Zhu Ronald X 
Published: February 2017

The objective of this study was to evaluate and understand the systematic error between the planned three‐dimensional (3D) dose and the delivered dose to patient in scanning beam proton therapy for lung tumors. Single‐field and multifield optimized scanning beam proton therapy plans were generated for ten patients with stage II‐III lung cancer with a mix of tumor motion and size. 3D doses in CT datasets for different respiratory phases and the time‐weighted average CT, as well as the four‐dimensional (4D) doses were computed for both plans. The 3D and 4D dose differences for the targets and different organs at risk were compared using dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and voxel‐based techniques, and correlated with the extent of tumor motion. The gross tumor volume (GTV) dose was maintained in all 3D and 4D doses, using the internal GTV override technique. The DVH and voxel‐based techniques are highly correlated. The mean dose error and the standard deviation of dose error for all target volumes were both less than 1.5% for all but one patient. However, the point dose difference between the 3D and 4D doses was up to 6% for the GTV and greater than 10% for the clinical and planning target volumes. Changes in the 4D and 3D doses were not correlated with tumor motion. The planning technique (single‐field or multifield optimized) did not affect the observed systematic error. In conclusion, the dose error in 3D dose calculation varies from patient to patient and does not correlate with lung tumor motion. Therefore, patient‐specific evaluation of the 4D dose is important for scanning beam proton therapy for lung tumors.PACS number: 87.55.D
Characterization of MOSkin detector for in vivo skin dose measurement during megavoltage radiotherapy
Authors: Jong Wei Loong , Wong Jeannie Hsiu Ding , Ung Ngie Min , Ng Kwan Hoong , Ho Gwo Fuang , Cutajar Dean L. , Rosenfeld Anatoly B. 
Published: February 2017

In vivo dosimetry is important during radiotherapy to ensure the accuracy of the dose delivered to the treatment volume. A dosimeter should be characterized based on its application before it is used for in vivo dosimetry. In this study, we characterize a new MOSFET‐based detector, the MOSkin detector, on surface for in vivo skin dosimetry. The advantages of the MOSkin detector are its water equivalent depth of measurement of 0.07 mm, small physical size with submicron dosimetric volume, and the ability to provide real‐time readout. A MOSkin detector was calibrated and the reproducibility, linearity, and response over a large dose range to different threshold voltages were determined. Surface dose on solid water phantom was measured using MOSkin detector and compared with Markus ionization chamber and GAFCHROMIC EBT2 film measurements. Dependence in the response of the MOSkin detector on the surface of solid water phantom was also tested for different (i) source to surface distances (SSDs); (ii) field sizes; (iii) surface dose; (iv) radiation incident angles; and (v) wedges. The MOSkin detector showed excellent reproducibility and linearity for dose range of 50 cGy to 300 cGy. The MOSkin detector showed reliable response to different SSDs, field sizes, surface, radiation incident angles, and wedges. The MOSkin detector is suitable for in vivo skin dosimetry.PACS number: 87.55.Qr
Evaluation of gantry rotation overrun in axial CT scanning
Authors: Fukuda Atsushi , Lin Pei‐Jan P. , Matsubara Kosuke , Miyati Tosiaki 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a simple method to assess gantry rotation overrun in a single axial CT scanning. The exposure time in the axial scanning was measured at selected nominal rotation times (400, 700, and 1000 ms) using a solid‐state detector, the RTI's CT dose profiler (CTDP). CTDP was placed at the isocenter and the radiation dose rate signal (profile) was recorded. Subsequently, the full width of this profile was determined as the exposure time (). Next, CTDP was positioned on the inner cover of the gantry with a sheet of lead (1 mm thick) placed on top of the detector. Gantry rotation time () was determined by the time between two successive radiation peaks during continuous helical scanning. The gantry overrun time () is, thus, determined as . The exposure times in the axial scanning, , obtained with CTDP for nominal rotation times of 400, 700, and 1000 ms were 409.5, 709.6, and 1008.7 ms, respectively. On the other hand, the measured gantry rotation times, , were 400.0, 700.3, and 999.8 ms, respectively. Therefore, the overruns were 9.5, 9.3, and 8.9 ms for nominal rotation times of 400, 700, and 1000 ms, respectively. The evaluation of overrun in axial scanning can be accomplished with the measurements of both the exposure time in axial scanning and the gantry rotation time. It is also noteworthy that in this context, overrun implies overexposure in axial scanning, which is still used, particularly, in head CT examination.PACS number: 87.57.Q‐
The accuracy of Acuros XB algorithm for radiation beams traversing a metallic hip implant — comparison with measurements and Monte Carlo calculations
Authors: Ojala Jarkko , Kapanen Mika , Sipilä Petri , Hyödynmaa Simo , Pitkänen Maunu 
Published: February 2017

In this study, the clinical benefit of the improved accuracy of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm, implemented in a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse, was demonstrated with beams traversing a high‐Z material. This is also the first study assessing the accuracy of the AXB algorithm applying volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique compared to full Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. In the first phase the AXB algorithm was benchmarked against point dosimetry, film dosimetry, and full MC calculation in a water‐filled anthropometric phantom with a unilateral hip implant. Also the validity of the full MC calculation used as reference method was demonstrated. The dose calculations were performed both in original computed tomography (CT) dataset, which included artifacts, and in corrected CT dataset, where constant Hounsfield unit (HU) value assignment for all the materials was made. In the second phase, a clinical treatment plan was prepared for a prostate cancer patient with a unilateral hip implant. The plan applied a hybrid VMAT technique that included partial arcs that avoided passing through the implant and static beams traversing the implant. Ultimately, the AXB‐calculated dose distribution was compared to the recalculation by the full MC simulation to assess the accuracy of the AXB algorithm in clinical setting. A recalculation with the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) was also performed to quantify the benefit of the improved dose calculation accuracy of type ‘c’ algorithm (AXB) over type ‘b’ algorithm (AAA). The agreement between the AXB algorithm and the full MC model was very good inside and in the vicinity of the implant and elsewhere, which verifies the accuracy of the AXB algorithm for patient plans with beams traversing through high‐Z material, whereas the AAA produced larger discrepancies.PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x, 87.55.D‐, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.Qr
A six‐year review of more than 13,000 patient‐specific IMRT QA results from 13 different treatment sites
Authors: Pulliam Kiley B. , Followill David , Court Laurence , Dong Lei , Gillin Michael , Prado Karl , Kry Stephen F. 
Published: February 2017

Due to a lack of information regarding the current clinical experience of IMRT QA for a large and varied plan population, we reviewed our patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) results for 13,003 treatment plans from 13 distinct treatment sites from a six‐year period. QA records were reviewed for dose difference (single point with ion chamber measurement; agreement criteria) and percentage of pixels passing relative dose gamma analysis (film measurement; 90% passing 5%(global)/3 mm agreement criteria) from 2005 through 2011. Plan records were analyzed for trends with measurement date and treatment site. Plans failing to meet QA tolerance criteria were evaluated for follow‐up clinical action (i.e., if repeat measurements were performed). The mean difference () between ion chamber point measurements and calculated doses was (calculated values being slightly higher) and, regarding planar dose evaluations, the mean percentage of pixels passing the gamma criteria of 5%(global)/3 mm was 97.7% (lower 95th percentile: 92.2%). 97.7% and 99.3% of plans passed the point dose and planar dose verification, respectively. We observed statistically significant differences () in both point dose and planar dose verification measurements as a function of treatment site (particularly for stereotactic spine and mesothelioma sites) and measurement date (average agreement improved with time). However, despite improved dosimetric agreement, the percentage of failing plans has remained nearly constant at 2.3%.PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km, 87.56.Fc
Real‐time simulator for designing electron dual scattering foil systems
Authors: Carver Robert L. , Hogstrom Kenneth R. , Price Michael J. , LeBlanc Justin D. , Pitcher Garret M. 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this work was to develop a user friendly, accurate, real‐time computer simulator to facilitate the design of dual foil scattering systems for electron beams on radiotherapy accelerators. The simulator allows for a relatively quick, initial design that can be refined and verified with subsequent Monte Carlo (MC) calculations and measurements. The simulator also is a powerful educational tool. The simulator consists of an analytical algorithm for calculating electron fluence and X‐ray dose and a graphical user interface (GUI) C++ program. The algorithm predicts electron fluence using Fermi‐Eyges multiple Coulomb scattering theory with the reduced Gaussian formalism for scattering powers. The simulator also estimates central‐axis and off‐axis X‐ray dose arising from the dual foil system. Once the geometry of the accelerator is specified, the simulator allows the user to continuously vary primary scattering foil material and thickness, secondary scattering foil material and Gaussian shape (thickness and sigma), and beam energy. The off‐axis electron relative fluence or total dose profile and central‐axis X‐ray dose contamination are computed and displayed in real time. The simulator was validated by comparison of off‐axis electron relative fluence and X‐ray percent dose profiles with those calculated using EGSnrc MC. Over the energy range 7–20 MeV, using present foils on an Elekta radiotherapy accelerator, the simulator was able to reproduce MC profiles to within 2% out to 20 cm from the central axis. The central‐axis X‐ray percent dose predictions matched measured data to within 0.5%. The calculation time was approximately 100 ms using a single Intel 2.93 GHz processor, which allows for real‐time variation of foil geometrical parameters using slider bars. This work demonstrates how the user‐friendly GUI and real‐time nature of the simulator make it an effective educational tool for gaining a better understanding of the effects that various system parameters have on a relative dose profile. This work also demonstrates a method for using the simulator as a design tool for creating custom dual scattering foil systems in the clinical range of beam energies (6–20 MeV).PACS number: 87.10.Ca
Dose calibration of EPIDs for segmented IMRT dosimetry
Authors: Deshpande Shrikant , Xing Aitang , Holloway Lois , Metcalfe Peter , Vial Philip 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study was to investigate the dose response of amorphous silicon (a‐Si) electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) under different acquisition settings for both open jaw defined fields and segmented intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields. Four different EPIDs were used. Two Siemens and one Elekta plus a standalone Perkin Elmer research EPID. Each was operated with different acquisition systems and settings. Dose response linearity was measured for open static jaw defined fields and ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields for a range of equipment and system settings. Six ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields were used. The segments of each IMRT field were fixed at field size with equal MU per segment, each field having a total of 20 MU. Simultaneous measurements with an ionization chamber array (ICA) and EPID were performed to separate beam and detector response characteristics. Three different pixel calibration methods were demonstrated and compared for an example ‘clinical IMRT field’. The dose response with the Elekta EPID for ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields versus static fields agreed to within 2.5% for monitor unit . The dose response for the Siemens systems was difficult to interpret due to the poor reproducibility for segmented delivery, at , which was not observed with the standalone research EPID nor ICA on the same machine. The dose response measured under different acquisition settings and different linac/EPID combinations matched closely (), except for the Siemens EPID. Clinical IMRT EPID dosimetry implemented with the different pixel‐to‐dose calibration methods indicated that calibration at 20 MU provides equivalent results to implementing a ghosting correction model. The nonlinear dose response was consistent across both clinical EPIDs and the standalone research EPID, with the exception of the poor reproducibility seen with Siemens EPID images of IMRT fields. The nonlinear dose response was relatively insensitive to acquisition settings and appears to be primarily due to gain ghosting effects. No additional ghosting correction factor is necessary when the pixel‐to‐dose calibration factor at small MU calibration method is used.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq
Correlation of phantom‐based and log file patient‐specific QA with complexity scores for VMAT
Authors: Agnew Christina E. , Irvine Denise M. , McGarry Conor K. 
Published: February 2017

The motivation for this study was to reduce physics workload relating to patient‐specific quality assurance (QA). VMAT plan delivery accuracy was determined from analysis of pre‐ and on‐treatment trajectory log files and phantom‐based ionization chamber array measurements. The correlation in this combination of measurements for patient‐specific QA was investigated. The relationship between delivery errors and plan complexity was investigated as a potential method to further reduce patient‐specific QA workload. Thirty VMAT plans from three treatment sites — prostate only, prostate and pelvic node (PPN), and head and neck (H&N) — were retrospectively analyzed in this work. The 2D fluence delivery reconstructed from pretreatment and on‐treatment trajectory log files was compared with the planned fluence using gamma analysis. Pretreatment dose delivery verification was also carried out using gamma analysis of ionization chamber array measurements compared with calculated doses. Pearson correlations were used to explore any relationship between trajectory log file (pretreatment and on‐treatment) and ionization chamber array gamma results (pretreatment). Plan complexity was assessed using the MU/ arc and the modulation complexity score (MCS), with Pearson correlations used to examine any relationships between complexity metrics and plan delivery accuracy. Trajectory log files were also used to further explore the accuracy of MLC and gantry positions. Pretreatment 1%/1 mm gamma passing rates for trajectory log file analysis were 99.1% (98.7%–99.2%), 99.3% (99.1%–99.5%), and 98.4% (97.3%–98.8%) (median (IQR)) for prostate, PPN, and H&N, respectively, and were significantly correlated to on‐treatment trajectory log file gamma results (). Pretreatment ionization chamber array (2%/2 mm) gamma results were also significantly correlated with on‐treatment trajectory log file gamma results (). Furthermore, all gamma results displayed a significant correlation with MCS (), but not with MU/arc. Average MLC position and gantry angle errors were and over all treatment sites and were not found to affect delivery accuracy. However, variability in MLC speed was found to be directly related to MLC position accuracy. The accuracy of VMAT plan delivery assessed using pretreatment trajectory log file fluence delivery and ionization chamber array measurements were strongly correlated with on‐treatment trajectory log file fluence delivery. The strong correlation between trajectory log file and phantom‐based gamma results demonstrates potential to reduce our current patient‐specific QA. Additionally, insight into MLC and gantry position accuracy through trajectory log file analysis and the strong correlation between gamma analysis results and the MCS could also provide further methodologies to both optimize the VMAT planning and QA process.PACS number: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Kh, 87.55.Qr
Bladder and rectum dose estimations on digitized radiographs for vaginal brachytherapy after hysterectomy
Authors: Zhang Winson , Bhatia Sudershan K. , Sun Wenqing , Modrick Joseph M. , Kim Yusung 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of assessing bladder and rectal point doses, using orthogonal radiographs without treatment planning, for vaginal cylinder applicator (VC), high‐dose‐rate (HDR) vaginal cuff brachytherapy (BT) after hysterectomy. Thirty‐three VC HDR BT treatment plans from 31 postoperative endometrial cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed. Single‐channel VC with four differing diameters — 2.0 cm, 2.3 cm, 2.6 cm, and 3.0 cm — were analyzed. Dose‐distance modeling was performed to estimate bladder and rectal point doses by measuring distances on each orthogonal radiograph without treatment planning. The estimated doses were then compared with doses calculated on treatment planning system (TPS). Their percent (%) dose differences were recorded. Analysis was performed for each VC size, ICRU bladder and rectal points, and the closest rectal point. The estimated doses obtained from dose‐distance modeling displayed on average less than 2.5% difference when compared with TPS doses at ICRU bladder and rectal points for each VC size. Dose percent differences between estimated values and TPS values were on average 1.9% and 2.5% for ICRU bladder and rectal point, respectively, regardless of VC sizes. Dose‐distance modeling for closest rectal point presented on average 5.4% dose difference when compared with TPS values of all VC sizes. It was feasible to estimate rectal and bladder point doses by measuring distances on orthogonal radiographs without treatment planning. Percent dose differences were 2.5% less for both ICRU bladder and rectal points, regardless of VC sizes. The use of closest rectal point is not recommended for estimating rectal dose.PACS number: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Jw, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.D‐, 87.55dk
A comparison of the dose distributions from three proton treatment planning systems in the planning of meningioma patients with single‐field uniform dose pencil beam scanning
Authors: Doolan Paul J. , Alshaikhi Jailan , Rosenberg Ivan , Ainsley Christopher G. , Gibson Adam , D'Souza Derek , Bentefour El Hassane , Royle Gary 
Published: February 2017

With the number of new proton centers increasing rapidly, there is a need for an assessment of the available proton treatment planning systems (TPSs). This study compares the dose distributions of complex meningioma plans produced by three proton TPSs: Eclipse, Pinnacle3, and XiO. All three systems were commissioned with the same beam data and, as best as possible, matched configuration settings. Proton treatment plans for ten patients were produced on each system with a pencil beam scanning, single‐field uniform dose approach, using a fixed horizontal beamline. All 30 plans were subjected to identical dose constraints, both for the target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing, with a consistent order of priority. Beam geometry, lateral field margins, and lateral spot resolutions were made consistent across all systems. Few statistically significant differences were found between the target coverage and OAR sparing of each system, with all optimizers managing to produce plans within clinical tolerances ( of prescribed dose, , , , and OAR maximum doses) despite strict constraints and overlapping structures.PACS number: 87.55.D‐
In vivo dosimetry and shielding disk alignment verification by EBT3 GAFCHROMIC film in breast IOERT treatment
Authors: Severgnini Mara , de Denaro Mario , Bortul Marina , Vidali Cristiana , Beorchia Aulo 
Published: February 2017

Intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) cannot usually benefit, as conventional external radiotherapy, from software systems of treatment planning based on computed tomography and from common dose verify procedures. For this reason, in vivo film dosimetry (IVFD) proves to be an effective methodology to evaluate the actual radiation dose delivered to the target. A practical method for IVFD during breast IOERT was carried out to improve information on the dose actually delivered to the tumor target and on the alignment of the shielding disk with respect to the electron beam. Two EBT3 GAFCHROMIC films have been positioned on the two sides of the shielding disk in order to obtain the dose maps at the target and beyond the disk. Moreover the postprocessing analysis of the dose distribution measured on the films provides a quantitative estimate of the misalignment between the collimator and the disk. EBT3 radiochromic films have been demonstrated to be suitable dosimeters for IVD due to their linear dose‐optical density response in a narrow range around the prescribed dose, as well as their capability to be fixed to the shielding disk without giving any distortion in the dose distribution. Off‐line analysis of the radiochromic film allowed absolute dose measurements and this is indeed a very important verification of the correct exposure to the target organ, as well as an estimate of the dose to the healthy tissue underlying the shielding. These dose maps allow surgeons and radiation oncologists to take advantage of qualitative and quantitative feedback for setting more accurate treatment strategies and further optimized procedures. The proper alignment using elastic bands has improved the absolute dose accuracy and the collimator disk alignment by more than 50%.PACS number: 87.55.kh