bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Investigation on the performance of dedicated radiotherapy positioning devices for MR scanning for prostate planning
Authors: Sun Jidi , Dowling Jason A. , Pichler Peter , Parker Joel , Martin Jarad , Stanwell Peter , Arm Jameen , Menk Fred , Greer Peter B. 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study was to investigate performance of the couch and coil mounts designed for MR‐simulation prostate scanning using data from ten volunteers. Volunteers were scanned using the standard MR scanning protocol with the MR coil directly strapped on the external body and the volunteer lying on the original scanner table. They also were scanned using a MR‐simulation table top and pelvic coil mounts. MR images from both setups were compared in terms of body contour variation and image quality effects within particular organs of interest. Six‐field conformal plans were generated on the two images with assigned bulk density for dose calculation. With the MR‐simulation devices, the anterior skin deformation was reduced by up to 1.7 cm. The hard tabletop minimizes the posterior body deformation which can be up to 2.3 cm on the standard table, depending on the weight of volunteer. The image signal‐to‐noise ratio reduced by 14% and 25% on large field of view (FOV) and small FOV images, respectively, after using the coil mount; the prostate volume contoured on two images showed difference of . The external body deformation caused a mean dose reduction of , while the coverage reduced by and in and , respectively. A dedicated MR simulation setup for prostate radiotherapy is essential to ensure the agreement between planning anatomy and treatment anatomy. The image signal was reduced after applying the coil mount, but no significant effect was found on prostate contouring.PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.61.‐c, 87.57.C‐
Evaluation of an electron Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for treatment planning
Authors: Chamberland Eve , Beaulieu Luc , Lachance Bernard 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the electron Monte Carlo (eMC) dose calculation algorithm included in a commercial treatment planning system and compare its performance against an electron pencil beam algorithm. Several tests were performed to explore the system's behavior in simple geometries and in configurations encountered in clinical practice. The first series of tests were executed in a homogeneous water phantom, where experimental measurements and eMC‐calculated dose distributions were compared for various combinations of energy and applicator. More specifically, we compared beam profiles and depth‐dose curves at different source‐to‐surface distances (SSDs) and gantry angles, by using dose difference and distance to agreement. Also, we compared output factors, we studied the effects of algorithm input parameters, which are the random number generator seed, as well as the calculation grid size, and we performed a calculation time evaluation. Three different inhomogeneous solid phantoms were built, using high‐ and low‐density materials inserts, to clinically simulate relevant heterogeneity conditions: a small air cylinder within a homogeneous phantom, a lung phantom, and a chest wall phantom. We also used an anthropomorphic phantom to perform comparison of eMC calculations to measurements. Finally, we proceeded with an evaluation of the eMC algorithm on a clinical case of nose cancer. In all mentioned cases, measurements, carried out by means of XV‐2 films, radiographic films or EBT2 Gafchromic films. were used to compare eMC calculations with dose distributions obtained from an electron pencil beam algorithm. eMC calculations in the water phantom were accurate. Discrepancies for depth‐dose curves and beam profiles were under 2.5% and 2 mm. Dose calculations with eMC for the small air cylinder and the lung phantom agreed within 2% and 4%, respectively. eMC calculations for the chest wall phantom and the anthropomorphic phantom also showed a positive agreement with the measurements. The retrospective dosimetric comparison of a clinical case, which presented scatter perturbations by air cavities, showed a difference in dose of up to 20% between pencil beam and eMC algorithms. When comparing to the pencil beam algorithm, eMC calculations are definitely more accurate at predicting large dose perturbations due to inhomogeneities.PACS numbers: 87.55.de, 87.55.kd
Assessment of Eclipse electron Monte Carlo output prediction for various topologies
Authors: Lawrence Shane L. , Van Lieshout Natascha H.M. , Charland Paule M. 
Published: February 2017

Monte Carlo simulation is deemed to be the leading algorithm for accurate dose calculation with electron beams. Patient anatomy (contours and tissue densities) as well as irradiation geometry is accounted for. The accuracy of the Monitor Unit (MU) determination is one essential aspect of a treatment planning system. Patient‐specific quality assurance of a Monte Carlo plan usually involves verification of the MUs with an independent simpler calculation approach, in which flat geometry is to be assumed. The magnitude of the discrepancies between flat and varied surfaces for a few scenarios has been investigated in this study. The ability to predict MUs for various surface topologies by the commercial electron Monte Carlo implementation from Varian Eclipse system (Eclipse eMC) has been evaluated and compared to the Generalized Gaussian Pencil Beam (GGPB) algorithm. Ten phantoms with different topologies were constructed of water‐equivalent material. Measurements with a parallel plate ionization chamber were performed using these phantoms to gauge their relative impact on outputs for 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV electron beams from a Varian TrueBeam with cone sizes ranging from to . The corresponding Monte Carlo simulations of the measured geometries were carried out using the CT scans of these phantoms. The results indicated that the Eclipse eMC algorithm can predict these output changes within 3% for most scenarios. However, at the lowest energy, the discrepancy was the greatest, up to 6%. In comparison, the Eclipse GGPB algorithm had much worse agreement, with discrepancies up to 17% at the lowest energies.PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.55.km
An accurate algorithm to match imperfectly matched images for lung tumor detection without markers
Authors: Rozario Timothy , Bereg Sergey , Yan Yulong , Chiu Tsuicheng , Liu Honghuan , Kearney Vasant , Jiang Lan , Mao Weihua 
Published: February 2017

In order to locate lung tumors on kV projection images without internal markers, digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) are created and compared with projection images. However, lung tumors always move due to respiration and their locations change on projection images while they are static on DRRs. In addition, global image intensity discrepancies exist between DRRs and projections due to their different image orientations, scattering, and noises. This adversely affects comparison accuracy. A simple but efficient comparison algorithm is reported to match imperfectly matched projection images and DRRs. The kV projection images were matched with different DRRs in two steps. Preprocessing was performed in advance to generate two sets of DRRs. The tumors were removed from the planning 3D CT for a single phase of planning 4D CT images using planning contours of tumors. DRRs of background and DRRs of tumors were generated separately for every projection angle. The first step was to match projection images with DRRs of background signals. This method divided global images into a matrix of small tiles and similarities were evaluated by calculating normalized cross‐correlation (NCC) between corresponding tiles on projections and DRRs. The tile configuration (tile locations) was automatically optimized to keep the tumor within a single projection tile that had a bad matching with the corresponding DRR tile. A pixel‐based linear transformation was determined by linear interpolations of tile transformation results obtained during tile matching. The background DRRs were transformed to the projection image level and subtracted from it. The resulting subtracted image now contained only the tumor. The second step was to register DRRs of tumors to the subtracted image to locate the tumor. This method was successfully applied to kV fluoro images (about 1000 images) acquired on a Vero (BrainLAB) for dynamic tumor tracking on phantom studies. Radiation opaque markers were implanted and used as ground truth for tumor positions. Although other organs and bony structures introduced strong signals superimposed on tumors at some angles, this method accurately located tumors on every projection over 12 gantry angles. The maximum error was less than 2.2 mm, while the total average error was less than 0.9 mm. This algorithm was capable of detecting tumors without markers, despite strong background signals.PACS numbers: 87.57.cj, 87.57.cp87.57.nj, 87.57.np, 87.57.Q‐, 87.59.bf, 87.63.lm
Flattening filter‐free accelerators: a report from the AAPM Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group
Authors: Xiao Ying , Kry Stephen F. , Popple Richard , Yorke Ellen , Papanikolaou Niko , Stathakis Sotirios , Xia Ping , Huq Saiful , Bayouth John , Galvin James , Yin Fang‐Fang 
Published: February 2017

This report describes the current state of flattening filter‐free (FFF) radiotherapy beams implemented on conventional linear accelerators, and is aimed primarily at practicing medical physicists. The Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a writing group to assess FFF technology. The published literature on FFF technology was reviewed, along with technical specifications provided by vendors. Based on this information, supplemented by the clinical experience of the group members, consensus guidelines and recommendations for implementation of FFF technology were developed. Areas in need of further investigation were identified. Removing the flattening filter increases beam intensity, especially near the central axis. Increased intensity reduces treatment time, especially for high‐dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS). Furthermore, removing the flattening filter reduces out‐of‐field dose and improves beam modeling accuracy. FFF beams are advantageous for small field (e.g., SRS) treatments and are appropriate for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For conventional 3D radiotherapy of large targets, FFF beams may be disadvantageous compared to flattened beams because of the heterogeneity of FFF beam across the target (unless modulation is employed). For any application, the nonflat beam characteristics and substantially higher dose rates require consideration during the commissioning and quality assurance processes relative to flattened beams, and the appropriate clinical use of the technology needs to be identified. Consideration also needs to be given to these unique characteristics when undertaking facility planning. Several areas still warrant further research and development. Recommendations pertinent to FFF technology, including acceptance testing, commissioning, quality assurance, radiation safety, and facility planning, are presented. Examples of clinical applications are provided. Several of the areas in which future research and development are needed are also indicated.PACS number: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.56.bc
A special report of current state of the medical physicist workforce — results of the 2012 ASTRO Comprehensive Workforce Study
Authors: Chen Erli , Arnone Anna , Sillanpaa Jussi K , Yu Yan , Mills Michael D. 
Published: February 2017

The medical physics profession is undergoing significant changes. Starting in 2014, candidates registering for certification exams by the American Board of Radiology must have completed a CAMPEP‐accredited residency. This requirement, along with tightened state regulations, uncertainty in future reimbursement, and a stronger emphasis on board certification, have raised questions concerning the state of the medical physics workforce and its ability to adapt to changing requirements. In 2012, ASTRO conducted a workforce study of the comprehensive field of radiation oncology. This article reviews the findings of the medical physics section of the study, including age and gender distribution, educational background, workload, and primary work setting. We also report on job satisfaction, the perceived supply and demand of medical physicists, and the medical physicists' main concerns pertaining to patient safety and quality assurance.PACS number: 87.90
AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 3.a: Levels of supervision for medical physicists in clinical training
Authors: Seibert J. Anthony , Clements Jessica B. , Halvorsen Per H. , Herman Michael G. , Martin Melissa C. , Palta Jatinder , Pfeiffer Douglas E. , Pizzutiello Robert J. , Schueler Beth A. , Shepard S. Jeff , Fairobent Lynne A. 
Published: February 2017

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States.The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner.Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:

Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.
Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.
Evaluation of the scatter doses in the direction of the buccal mucosa from dental metals
Authors: Shimamoto Hiroaki , Sumida Iori , Kakimoto Naoya , Marutani Keisuke , Okahata Ryoko , Usami Ai , Tsujimoto Tomomi , Murakami Shumei , Furukawa Souhei , Tetradis Sotirios 
Published: February 2017

The presence of dental metals creates radiation dose perturbation due to scattered radiation during radiation therapy for the head and neck region. The purpose of our study was to compare the scatter doses resulting from various dental metals in the direction of the buccal mucosa among a single‐field technique, three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT), and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) during radiation therapy for the head and neck region. We used nine metal cubes with 10 mm sides, which were placed inside a water phantom. The scatter doses from the cubes in the direction of the buccal mucosa were measured using radiochromic films. The films were placed perpendicularly to the surface of the cubes. The phantom was irradiated with a 4 MV photon energy by a linear accelerator for all techniques. In the single‐field technique, the scatter doses from dental metals showed 3.7%–19.3% dose increases, and gold showed the largest dose increase. In 3D CRT, the scatter doses from dental metals showed 1.4%–6.9% dose increases, which were within the measurement uncertainty (except for gold). In IMRT, the scatter doses from dental metals showed only 1.4%–4.3% dose increases, which were all within the measurement uncertainty. During radiation therapy for the head and neck region, the scatter doses from the tested dental metals in the direction of the buccal mucosa in 3D CRT or IMRT were lower than those using the single‐field technique. However, there were no differences between the scatter doses resulting from particular dental metals in the direction of the buccal mucosa in 3D CRT and those in IMRT, except for gold.PACS number: 87
Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation
Authors: Strauss Keith J. , Racadio John M. , Abruzzo Todd A. , Johnson Neil D. , Patel Manish N. , Kukreja Kamlesh U. , den Hartog Mark. J. H. , Hoornaert Bart P.A. , Nachabe Rami A. 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study was to reduce pediatric doses while maintaining or improving image quality scores without removing the grid from X‐ray beam. This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Three piglets (5, 14, and 20 kg) were imaged using six different selectable detector air kerma () per frame values (100%, 70%, 50%, 35%, 25%, 17.5%) with and without the grid. Number of distal branches visualized with diagnostic confidence relative to the injected vessel defined image quality score. Five pediatric interventional radiologists evaluated all images. Image quality score and pigletwere statistically compared using analysis of variance and receiver operating curve analysis to define the preferred dose setting and use of grid for a visibility of 2nd and 3rd order vessel branches. Grid removal reduced both dose to subject and imaging quality by 26%. Third order branches could only be visualized with the grid present; 100% detectorwas required for smallest pig, while 70% detectorwas adequate for the two larger pigs. Second order branches could be visualized with grid at 17.5% detectorfor all three pig sizes. Without the grid, 50%, 35%, and 35% detectorwere required for smallest to largest pig, respectively. Grid removal reduces both dose and image quality score. Image quality scores can be maintained with less dose to subject with the grid in the beam as opposed to removed. Smaller anatomy requires more dose to the detector to achieve the same image quality score.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.57.N‐, 87.57.cj, 87.59.cf, 87.59.Dj
Combination effects of tissue heterogeneity and geometric targeting error in stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer using CyberKnife
Authors: Kang Ki Mun , Jeong Bae Kwon , Choi Hoon‐Sik , Yoo Seung Hoon , Hwang Ui‐Jung , Lim Young Kyung , Jeong Hojin 
Published: February 2017

We have investigated the combined effect of tissue heterogeneity and its variation associated with geometric error in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer. The treatment plans for eight lung cancer patients were calculated using effective path length (EPL) correction and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms, with both having the same beam configuration for each patient. These two kinds of plans for individual patients were then subsequently recalculated with adding systematic and random geometric errors. In the ordinary treatment plans calculated with no geometric offset, the EPL calculations, compared with the MC calculations, largely overestimated the doses to PTV by , whereas the overestimation were markedly lower in GTV by due to relatively higher density of GTV than of PTV. When recalculating the plans for individual patients with assigning the systematic and random geometric errors, no significant changes in the relative dose distribution, except for overall shift, were observed in the EPL calculations, whereas largely altered in the MC calculations with a consistent increase in dose to GTV. Considering the better accuracy of MC than EPL algorithms, the present results demonstrated the strong coupling of tissue heterogeneity and geometric error, thereby emphasizing the essential need for simultaneous correction for tissue heterogeneity and geometric targeting error in SBRT of lung cancer.PACS numbers: 87.55.D, 87.55.kh, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x
Camera‐based independent couch height verification in radiation oncology
Authors: Kusters Martijn , Louwe Rob , Kastel Liesbeth Biemans‐van , Nieuwenkamp Henk , Zahradnik Rien , Claessen Roy , van Seters Ronald , Huizenga Henk 
Published: February 2017

For specific radiation therapy (RT) treatments, it is advantageous to use the isocenter‐to‐couch distance (ICD) for initial patient setup.(1) Since sagging of the treatment couch is not properly taken into account by the electronic readout of the treatment machine, this readout cannot be used for initial patient positioning using the isocenter‐to‐couch distance (ICD). Therefore, initial patient positioning to the prescribed ICD has been carried out using a ruler prior to each treatment fraction in our institution. However, the ruler method is laborious and logging of data is not possible. The objective of this study is to replace the ruler‐based setup of the couch height with an independent, user‐friendly, optical camera‐based method whereby the radiation technologists have to move only the couch to the correct couch height, which is visible on a display. A camera‐based independent couch height measurement system (ICHS) was developed in cooperation with Panasonic Electric Works Western Europe. Clinical data showed that the ICHS is at least as accurate as the application of a ruler to verify the ICD. The camera‐based independent couch height measurement system has been successfully implemented in seven treatment rooms, since 10 September 2012. The benefits of this system are a more streamlined workflow, reduction of human errors during initial patient setup, and logging of the actual couch height at the isocenter. Daily QA shows that the systems are stable and operate within the set 1 mm tolerance. Regular QA of the system is necessary to guarantee that the system works correctly.PACS number: 87.55 QR
The impact of CT scan energy on range calculation in proton therapy planning
Authors: Grantham Kevin K. , Li Hua , Zhao Tianyu , Klein Eric E. 
Published: February 2017

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of tube potential (kVp) on the CT number (HU) to proton stopping power ratio (PSPR) conversion. The range and dosimetric change introduced by a mismatch in kVp used for the CT scan and the HU to PSPR table, based on a specific kVp, used to calculate dose are analyzed. Three HU to PSPR curves, corresponding to three kVp settings on the CT scanner, were created. A treatment plan was created for a single beam in a water phantom passing through a wedge‐shaped bone heterogeneity. The dose was recalculated by changing only the HU to PSPR table used in the dose calculation. The change in the position of the distal 90% isodose line was recorded as a function of heterogeneity thickness along the beam path. The dosimetric impact of a mismatch in kVp between the CT and the HU to PSPR table was investigated by repeating this procedure for five clinical plans comparing DVH data and dose difference distributions. The HU to PSPR tables diverge for CT numbers greater than 200 HU. In the phantom plan, the divergence of the tables resulted in a difference in range of 1.6 mm per cm of bone in the beam path, for the HU used. For the clinical plans, the dosimetric effect of a kVp mismatch depends on the amount of bone in the beam path and the proximity of OARs to the distal range of the planned beams. A mismatch in kVp between the CT and the HU to PSPR table can introduce inaccuracy in the proton beam range. For dense bone, the measured range difference was approximately 1.6 mm per cm of bone along the beam path. However, the clinical cases analyzed showed a range change of 1 mm or less. Caution is merited when such a mismatch may occur.PACS numbers: 87.55.D, 87.55.Qr