bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Accuracy of measuring half‐ and quarter‐value layers and appropriate aperture width of a convenient method using a lead‐covered case in X‐ray computed tomography
Authors: Matsubara Kosuke , Ichikawa Katsuhiro , Murasaki Yuichi , Hirosawa Ayaka , Koshida Kichiro 
Published: February 2017

Determination of the half‐value layer (HVL) and quarter‐value layer (QVL) values is not an easy task in X‐ray computed tomography (CT), because a nonrotating X‐ray tube must be used, which requires the assistance of service engineers. Therefore, in this study, we determined the accuracy of the lead‐covered case method, which uses X‐rays from a rotating X‐ray tube, for measuring the HVL and QVL in CT. The lead‐covered case was manufactured from polystyrene foam and a 4 mm thick lead plate. The ionizing chamber was placed in the center of the case and aluminum filters were placed 15 cm above the aperture surface. Aperture widths of 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 cm for a tube voltage of 110 kV and an aperture width of 2.0 cm for the tube voltages of 80 and 130 kV were used to measure exposure doses. The results of the HVL and QVL were compared with those of the conventional nonrotating method. A 2.0 cm aperture was believed to be adequate, because of its small differences in the HVL and QVL in the nonrotating method and its reasonable exposure dose level. When the 2.0 cm aperture was used, the lead‐covered case method demonstrated slightly larger HVLs and QVLs (0.03‐0.06 mm for the HVL and 0.2‐0.4 mm for the QVL) at all the tube voltage settings. However, the differences in the effective energy were 0.1‐0.3 keV; therefore, it could be negligible in an organ‐absorbed dose evaluation and a quality assurance test for CT.PACS numbers: 87.57.‐s; 87.57.Q‐; 87.57.uq
On using the dosimetric leaf gap to model the rounded leaf ends in VMAT/RapidArc plans
Authors: Szpala Stanislaw , Cao Fred , Kohli Kirpal 
Published: February 2017

Partial transmission through rounded leaf ends of Varian multileaf collimators (MLC) is accounted for with a parameter called the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG). Verification of the value of the DLG is needed when the dose delivery is accompanied by gantry rotation in VMAT plans. We compared the doses measured with GAFCHROMIC film and an ionization chamber to treatment planning system (TPS) calculations to identify the optimum values of the DLG in clinical plans of the whole brain with metastases transferred to a phantom. We noticed the absence of a single value of the DLG that properly models all VMAT plans in our cohort (the optimum DLG varied between and ). The former value is considerably different from the optimum DLG in sliding window plans (about 2.0 mm) that approximate IMRT plans. We further found that a single‐value DLG model cannot accurately reproduce the measured dose profile even of a uniform static slit at a fixed gantry, which is the simplest MLC‐delimited field. The calculation overestimates the measurement in the proximal penumbra, while it underestimates in the distal penumbra. This prompted us to expand the DLG parameter from a plan‐specific number to a mathematical concept of the DLG being a function of the distance in the beam's eye view (BEV) between the dose point and the leaf ends. Such function compensates for the difference between the penumbras in a beam delimited with a rounded leaf MLC and delimited with solid jaws. Utilization of this concept allowed us generating a pair of step‐and‐shoot MLC plans for which we could qualitatively predict the value of the DLG providing best match to ionization chamber measurements. The plan for which the leafs stayed predominantly at positions requiring low values of the DLG (as seen in the profiles of 1D slits) yielded the combined DLG of , while the plan with leafs staying at positions requiring larger values of the DLG yielded the DLG . Considering the DLG to be a function of the distance (in BEV) between the dose point and the leaf ends allowed us to provide an explanation as to why conventional single‐number DLG is plan‐specific in VMAT plans.PACS numbers: 87.56.jf, 87.56.nk
Effect of RTOG breast/chest wall guidelines on dose‐volume histogram parameters*
Authors: Rudra Sonali , Al‐Hallaq Hania A. , Feng Christine , Chmura Steven J. , Hasan Yasmin 
Published: February 2017

Treatment planning for breast cancer has been traditionally based on clinical landmarks. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) published consensus guidelines on contouring target volumes (TV) for the breast/chest wall and draining lymphatics. The effect of these guidelines on dosimetric parameters in surrounding organs at risk (OAR) and TVs is unknown. Fourteen patients treated with clinically derived plans from 2007‐2011 (Group I) and fourteen patients treated with target volume‐based plans from 2011‐2012 were selected for comparison (Group II). Treatment plans were constructed based on clinical landmarks (Group I) or TVs (Group II) to a median dose of 50.4 Gy to the breast/chest wall, axilla (Ax), supraclavicular (SCV), and internal mammary (IMN) lymph nodes. The RTOG TVs were then contoured in Group I patients by a single investigator blinded to the dose distributions. Dose‐volume histograms (DVH) were computed for the RTOG TVs and OARs in both groups, and DVH parameters were compared. In Group II, coverage improved for the SCV ( versus 93.6%, ) and intact breast ( versus 99.3%, ). The dose to the cord, the lung (V20Gy and V30Gy), and contralateral breast (V5Gy) were the same. Finally, the low dose to the heart and lung was decreased in Group II (heart versus 27.3%, , heart vs. 17.5%, , and ipsilateral lung vs. 69.3%, ). Overall, our study supports that treatment planning using the RTOG consensus guidelines can improve coverage to certain target volumes compared to treatments based solely on clinical landmarks. Additionally, treatment planning using these target volumes does not increase dose to the contralateral breast, cord, heart, or lungs. Longer follow‐up is needed to determine if using these target volumes will affect clinical outcomes.PACS number: 87.55.dk
Comparison of high‐dose‐rate intracavitary brachytherapy dosimetry with and without anesthesia in patients with cervical carcinoma
Authors: Sharma Daya N. , Chaudhari Pritee , Sharma Seema , Gupta Leena , Jagadesan Pandjatcharam , Rath Goura K. , Julka Pramod K. 
Published: February 2017

This study compares the dosimetry of high‐dose‐rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR‐ICBT) performed with and without general anesthesia/spinal anesthesia (GA/SA) in patients with cervical carcinoma. We retrospectively retrieved the records of 138 HDR‐ICBT applicator insertions performed in 46 patients: 69 performed with GA/SA (anesthesia group known as AG) in 23 patients, and 69 performed without GA/SA (nonanesthesia group known as NAG) in 23 patients. The intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) application was done with central tandem and two vaginal ovoids. For each ICBT plan, a high‐dose‐rate (HDR) dose of 7 Gy was prescribed to point A. From each plan, the doses to Point B right , Point B left , bladder and rectal reference points ( and ) were recorded and compared in the two groups. Student's t‐test was applied to find out the significance of difference. The two groups were comparable in terms of demography and clinical characteristics. Mean Point doses in AG and NAG were 1.89 Gy (27% of Point A dose) and 1.82 Gy (26% of Point A dose), respectively. Mean Point doses in AG and NAG were 1.91 Gy (27% of Point A dose) and 1.85 Gy (26% of point A), respectively (p‐value 0.7). The mean dose to in AG and NAG was 5.03 Gy and 4.90 Gy, respectively (p‐value 0.6). The mean dose to was significantly higher in AG than NAG (5.09 Gy vs. 4.49 Gy, p‐value 0.01). Although based on conventional 2D dosimetry planning, our study has demonstrated that avoiding GA/SA does not result in inferior HDR‐ICBT dosimetry.PACS number: 87.53.Jw, 87.50.cm
Improved accuracy for noncoplanar radiotherapy: an EPID‐based method for submillimeter alignment of linear accelerator table rotation with MV isocenter
Authors: Nyflot Matthew J. , Cao Ning , Meyer Juergen , Ford Eric C. 
Published: February 2017

Accurate alignment of linear accelerator table rotational axis with radiation isocenter is critical for noncoplanar radiotherapy applications. The purpose of the present study is to develop a method to align the table rotation axis and the MV isocenter to submillimeter accuracy. We developed a computerized method using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and measured alignment stability over time. Mechanical and radiation isocenter coincidence was measured by placing a steel ball bearing at radiation isocenter using existing EPID techniques. Then, EPID images were acquired over the range of table rotation. A MATLAB script was developed to calculate the center of rotation, as well as the necessary adjustment to move the table rotational axis to MV isocenter. Adjustment was applied via torque to screws at the base of the linac table. Stability of rotational alignment was measured with 49 measurements over 363 days on four linacs. Initial rotational misalignment from radiation isocenter ranged from on the four tested linacs. Linac‐A had greatest error and was adjusted with the described method. After adjustment, the error was significantly decreased to . The adjustment was stable over the course of 15 measurements over 231 days. Linac‐B was not adjusted, but tracked from time of commissioning with 27 measurements over 363 days. No discernible shift in couch characteristics was observed (mean error ). The greater variability for Linac‐B may relate to the interchangeable two‐piece couch, which allows more lateral movement than the one‐piece Linac‐A couch. Submillimeter isocenter alignment was achieved by applying a precision correction to the linac table base. Table rotational characteristics were shown to be stable over the course of twelve months. The accuracy and efficiency of this method may make it suitable for acceptance testing, annual quality assurance, or commissioning of highly‐conformal noncoplanar radiotherapy programs.PACS number: 87
Detector system dose verification comparisons for arc therapy: couch vs. gantry mount
Authors: Manikandan Arjunan , Sarkar Biplab , Nandy Maitreyee , Sureka Chandra Sekaran , Gossman Michael S. , Sujatha Nadendla , Rajendran Vivek Thirupathur 
Published: February 2017

The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a gantry‐mounted detector system and a couch set detector system using a systematic multileaf collimator positional error manually introduced for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. Four head and neck and esophagus VMAT plans were evaluated by measurement using an electronic portal imaging device and an ion chamber array. Each plan was copied and duplicated with a 1 mm systematic MLC positional error in the left leaf bank. Direct comparison of measurements for plans with and without the error permitted observational characteristics for quality assurance performance between detectors. A total of 48 different plans were evaluated for this testing. The mean percentage planar dose differences required to satisfy a 95% match between plans with and without the MLCPE were 5.2% ± 0.5% for the chamber array with gantry motion, 8.12% ± 1.04% for the chamber array with a static gantry at 0°, and 10.9% ± 1.4% for the EPID with gantry motion. It was observed that the EPID was less accurate due to overresponse of the MLCPE in the left leaf bank. The EPID always images bank‐A on the ipsilateral side of the detector, whereas for a chamber array or for a patient, that bank changes as it crosses the ‐90° or +90° position. A couch set detector system can reproduce the TPS calculated values most consistently. We recommend it as the most reliable patient specific QA system for MLC position error testing. This research is highlighted by the finding of up to 12.7% dose variation for H/N and esophagus cases for VMAT delivery, where the mere source of error was the stated clinically acceptability of 1 mm MLC position deviation of TG‐142.PACS numbers: 87.56.‐v, 87.55.‐x, 07.57.KP, 29.40.‐n, 85.25.Pb
Quantitative assessment by measurement and modeling of mobile target elongation in cone‐beam computed tomographic imaging
Authors: Ali Imad , Alsbou Nesreen , Algan Ozer , Herman Terence , Ahmad Salahuddin 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study was to assess quantitatively elongation of mobile targets in cone‐beam CT (CBCT) imaging by measurement and modeling. A mathematical model was derived that predicts the measured lengths of mobile targets and its dependence on target size and motion patterns in CBCT imaging. Three tissue‐equivalent targets of differing sizes were inserted in an artificial thorax phantom to simulate lung lesions. Respiratory motion was mimicked with a mobile phantom that moves in one‐dimension along the superior‐inferior direction at a respiration frequency of 0.24 Hz for eight different amplitudes in the range 0‐40 mm. A mathematical model was derived to quantify the variations in target lengths and its dependence on phantom motion parameters in CBCT. Predictions of the model were verified by measurement of the lengths of mobile targets in CBCT images. The model predicts that target lengths increased linearly with increase in speed and amplitude of phantom motion in CBCT. The measured lengths of mobile targets imaged with CBCT agreed with the calculated lengths within half‐slice thickness spatial resolution. The maximal length of a mobile target was independent of the frequency and phase of motion. Elongation of mobile targets was similar in halffan and full‐fan CBCT for similar motion patterns, as long as the targets remained within the imaging view. Mobile targets elongated linearly with phantom speed and motion amplitude in CBCT imaging. The model introduced in this work assessed quantitatively the variation in target lengths induced by motion, which may be a useful tool to consider elongations of mobile targets in CBCT applications in diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy.PACS number: 87.57.qp
Interplay effect of angular dependence and calibration field size of MapCHECK 2 on RapidArc quality assurance
Authors: Jin Hosang , Keeling Vance P. , Johnson Daniel A. , Ahmad Salahuddin 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study is to investigate an effect of angular dependence and calibration field size of MapCHECK 2 on RapidArc QA for 6, 8, 10, and 15 MV The angular dependence was investigated by comparing MapCHECK 2 measurements in MapPHAN‐MC2 to the corresponding Eclipse calculations every 10° using 10 × 10 cm2 and 3 × 3 cm2 fields. Fourteen patients were selected to make RapidArc plans using the four energies, and verification plans were delivered to two phantom setups: MapCHECK 2/MapPHAN phantom (MapPHAN QA) and MapCHECK 2 on an isocentric mounting fixture (IMF QA). Migration of MapCHECK 2 on IMF was simulated by splitting arcs every 10° and displacing an isocenter of each partial arc in the Eclipse system (IMFACTUAL QA). To investigate the effect of calibration field size, MapCHECK 2 was calibrated by two field sizes (10 × 10 cm2 and 3 × 3 cm2) and applied to all QA measurements. The γ test was implemented using criteria of 1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm. A mean dose of all compared points for each plan was compared with respect to a mean effective field size of the RapidArc plan. The angular dependence was considerably high at gantry angles of 90° ± 10° and 270° ± 10° (for 10 × 10/3 × 3 cm2 at 90°, 30.6% ± 6.6%/33.4%± 5.8% (6 MV), 17.3% ± 5.3%/15.0% ± 6.8% (8 MV), 8.9% ± 2.9%/7.8% ± 3.2% (10 MV), and 2.2% ± 2.3%/‐1.3% ± 2.6% (15 MV)). For 6 MV, the angular dependence significantly deteriorated the γ passing rate for plans of large field size in MapPHAN QA (< 90% using 3%/3 mm); however, these plans passed the γ test in QA (> 95%). The different calibration field sizes did not make any significant dose difference for both MapPHAN QA and QA. For 8, 10, and 15 MV, the angular dependence does not make any clinically meaningful impact on MapPHAN QA. Both MapPHAN QA and QA presented clinically acceptable γ passing rates using 3%/3 mm. MapPHAN QA showed better passing rates than QA for the tighter criteria. The 10 × 10 cm2 calibration showed better agreement for plans of small effective field size (< 5 × 5 cm2) in MapPHAN QA. There was no statistical difference between IMF QA and QA. In conclusion, MapPHAN QA is not recommended for plans of large field size, especially for 6 MV, and MapCHECK 2 should be calibrated using a field size similar to a mean effective field size of a RapidArc plan for better agreement for IMF QA.PACS numbers: 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc
Lung and liver SBRT using helical tomotherapy — a dosimetric comparison of fixed jaw and dynamic jaw delivery
Authors: Rudofsky Leonie , Aynsley Eleanor , Beck Sebastian , Schubert Kai , Habl Gregor , Krause Sonja , Debus Jürgen , Sterzing Florian 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the time effectiveness and dose distribution details of dynamic jaw delivery compared to the regular helical tomotherapy delivery mode in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of liver and lung tumors. Ten patients with liver and ten patients with lung tumors were chosen to analyze the dose profiles and treatment times of regular helical tomotherapy delivery (2.5 cm field width) and new helical tomotherapy mode using dynamic jaw delivery with 5 cm field width. A median dose between 24 and 30 Gy was delivered in a single fraction. Regular helical tomotherapy took an average of 31.9 ± 6.7 min (lung SBRT) and 41.7 ± 15.0 min (liver SBRT). A reduction in delivery duration of 38.8% to 19.5 ± 2.9 min could be accomplished for lung irradiation (p < 0.05) and by 50.8% to 20.5 ± 6.0 min for liver SBRT (p < 0.05). Target coverage, as well as conformity and uniformity indices, showed no significant differences. No significant increase in organs‐at‐risk exposure could be detected either for lung or liver tumors. Therefore, use of new delivery mode with dynamic jaws improves treatment efficiency by reducing beam‐on time, while maintaining excellent plan quality.PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.N‐
Monte Carlo investigation of collapsed versus rotated IMRT plan verification
Authors: Conneely Elaine , Alexander Andrew , Ruo Russell , Chung Eunah , Seuntjens Jan , Foley Mark J. 
Published: February 2017

IMRT QA requires, among other tests, a time‐consuming process of measuring the absorbed dose, at least to a point, in a high‐dose, low‐dose‐gradient region. Some clinics use a technique of measuring this dose with all beams delivered at a single gantry angle (collapsed delivery), as opposed to the beams delivered at the planned gantry angle (rotated delivery). We examined, established, and optimized Monte Carlo simulations of the dosimetry for IMRT verification of treatment plans for these two different delivery modes (collapsed versus rotated). The results of the simulations were compared to the treatment planning system dose calculations for the two delivery modes, as well as to measurements taken. This was done in order to investigate the validity of the use of a collapsed delivery technique for IMRT QA. The BEAMnrc, DOSXYZnrc, and egs_chamber codes were utilized for the Monte Carlo simulations along with the MMCTP system. A number of different plan complexity metrics were also used in the analysis of the dose distributions in a bid to qualify why verification in a collapsed delivery may or may not be optimal for IMRT QA. Following the Alfonso et al.(1) formalism, the correction factor was calculated to correct the deviation of small fields from the reference conditions used for beam calibration. We report on the results obtained for a cohort of 20 patients. The plan complexity was investigated for each plan using the complexity metrics of homogeneity index, conformity index, modulation complexity score, and the fraction of beams from a particular plan that intersect the chamber when performing the QA. Rotated QA gives more consistent results than the collapsed QA technique. The factor deviates less from 1 for rotated QA than for collapsed QA. If the homogeneity index is less than 0.05 then the factor does not deviate from unity by more than 1%. A value this low for the homogeneity index can only be obtained with the rotated QA technique.PACS number: 87.55.Qr
Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA
Authors: McKenzie Elizabeth M. , Balter Peter A. , Stingo Francesco C. , Jones Jimmy , Followill David S. , Kry Stephen F. 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of patient‐specific, intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) results in a clinical setting. Six clinical patient plans were delivered to a variety of devices and analyses, including 1) radiographic film; 2) ion chamber; 3) 2D diode array delivered and analyzed in three different configurations (AP delivery with field‐by‐field analysis, AP delivery with composite analysis, and planned gantry angle delivery); 4) helical diode array; and 5) in‐house‐designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The six clinical plans were selected from a range of treatment sites and were of various levels of complexity. Of note, three of the plans had failed at least preliminary evaluation with our in‐house IMRT QA; the other three plans had passed QA. These plans were delivered three times sequentially without changing the setup, and then delivered two more times after breaking down and rebuilding the setup between each. This allowed for an investigation of reproducibility (in terms of dose, dose difference or percent of pixels passing gamma) of both the delivery and the physical setup. This study showed that the variability introduced from the setup was generally higher than the variability from redelivering the plan. Radiographic film showed the poorest reproducibility of the dosimeters investigated. In conclusion, the various IMRT QA systems demonstrated varying abilities to reproduce QA results consistently. All dosimetric devices demonstrated a reproducibility (coefficient of variation) of less than 4% in their QA results for all plans, with an average reproducibility of less than 2%. This work provides some quantification for the variability that may be seen for IMRT QA dosimeters.PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc
Essentials and guidelines for clinical medical physics residency training programs: executive summary of AAPM Report Number 249
Authors: Prisciandaro Joann I. , Willis Charles E. , Burmeister Jay W. , Clarke Geoffrey D. , Das Rupak K. , Esthappan Jacqueline , Gerbi Bruce J. , Harkness Beth A. , Patton James A. , Peck Donald J. , Pizzutiello Robert J. , Sandison George A. , White Sharon L. , Wichman Brian D. , Ibbott Geoffrey S. , Both Stefan 
Published: February 2017

There is a clear need for established standards for medical physics residency training. The complexity of techniques in imaging, nuclear medicine, and radiation oncology continues to increase with each passing year. It is therefore imperative that training requirements and competencies are routinely reviewed and updated to reflect the changing environment in hospitals and clinics across the country. In 2010, the AAPM Work Group on Periodic Review of Medical Physics Residency Training was formed and charged with updating AAPM Report Number 90. This work group includes AAPM members with extensive experience in clinical, professional, and educational aspects of medical physics. The resulting report, AAPM Report Number 249, concentrates on the clinical and professional knowledge needed to function independently as a practicing medical physicist in the areas of radiation oncology, imaging, and nuclear medicine, and constitutes a revision to AAPM Report Number 90. This manuscript presents an executive summary of AAPM Report Number 249.PACS number: 87.10.‐e