bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Dosimetric parameters of three new solid core I‐125 brachytherapy sources
Authors: Solberg Timothy D. , DeMarco John J. , Hugo Geoffrey , Wallace Robert E. 
Published: February 2007

Monte Carlo calculations and TLD measurements have been performed for the purpose of characterizing dosimetric properties of new commercially available brachytherapy sources. All sources tested consisted of a solid core, upon which a thin layer of has been adsorbed, encased within a titanium housing. The PharmaSeed BT‐125 source manufactured by Syncor is available in silver or palladium core configurations while the ADVANTAGE source from IsoAid has silver only. Dosimetric properties, including the dose rate constant, radial dose function, and anisotropy characteristics were determined according to the TG‐43 protocol. Additionally, the geometry function was calculated exactly using Monte Carlo and compared with both the point and line source approximations. The 1999 NIST standard was followed in determining air kerma strength. Dose rate constants were calculated to be , and for the PharmaSeed BT‐125‐1, BT‐125‐2, and ADVANTAGE sources, respectively. TLD measurements were in excellent agreement with Monte Carlo calculations. Radial dose function, g(r), calculated to a distance of 10 cm, and anisotropy function F(r, θ), calculated for radii from 0.5 to 7.0 cm, were similar among all source configurations. Anisotropy constants, , were calculated to be 0.941, 0.944, and 0.960 for the three sources, respectively. All dosimetric parameters were found to be in close agreement with previously published data for similar source configurations. The MCNP Monte Carlo code appears to be ideally suited to low energy dosimetry applications.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j
Quasi‐independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy
Authors: Tsai Jen‐San , Engler Mark J. , Liu James 
Published: February 2007

The number of linac monitor units (MU) from intensity modulated sequential tomotherapy (IMST) is substantially larger than the MU delivered in conventional radiation therapy, and the relation between MU and dose is obscure due to complicated variation of the beam intensities. The purpose of this work was to develop a practical method of verifying the MU and dose from IMST so that the MU of each arced beam could be double‐checked for accuracy. MU calculations for 41 arced beams from 14 IMST patients were performed using the variables of vane open fraction time, field size, target depth output factor, TMR, and derived intensity distribution. Discrepancy between planned and checked MU was quantified as percent. All 41 discrepancies were clustered between to , illustrated in a Gaussian‐shaped histogram centered at standard deviation indicating the present MU calculations are in agreement with the planned expectations. To confirm the correctness of the present calculated MUs of the IMST plans, eight of the calculated IMST plans are performed dose verifications using their hybrid plans, which are created by transporting patient's IMST plan beams onto a spherical polystyrene Phantom for dose distribution within the Phantom. The dose was measured with a 0.07 cc ionization chamber inserted in the spherical Phantom during the hybrid plan irradiation. Average discrepancy between planned and measured doses was found to be with single standard deviation uncertainty. The spread of the discrepancies of present calculated MUs relative to their planned ones are attributed to uncertainties of effective field size, effective planned dose corresponding to each arc, and inaccuracy of quantification of scattered dose from adjacent arced beams. Overall, the present calculation of MUs is consistent with what derived from treatment plans. Since the MUs are verified by actual dose measurements, therefore the present MU calculation technique is considered adequate for double‐checking planned IMST MUs.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a
Verification of dynamic and segmental IMRT delivery by dynamic log file analysis
Authors: Litzenberg Dale W. , Moran Jean M. , Fraass Benedick A. 
Published: February 2007

A program has been developed to evaluate the delivered fluence of step‐and‐shoot segmental and sliding window dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) fields. To automate these checks, a number of tools have been developed using data available from the dynamic log files that can be created each time a dynamic delivery occurs. Experiments were performed with a Varian 2100EX with a 120 leaf MLC equipped with dynamic capabilities. A dynamic leaf sequence is delivered and measured with film or an amorphous silicon imager. After delivery, the dynamic log file is written by the accelerator control system. The file reports the expected and actual position for each leaf and the dose fraction every 0.055 seconds. Leaf trajectories are calculated from this data and expected and actual fluence images are created from the difference of opposing leaf trajectories. These images can be compared with the expected delivery, measurements, and calculations of fluence. Tools have been developed to investigate other aspects of the delivery, such as specific leaf errors, beam hold‐off flags sent by the control system to the MLC, and gap widths. This program is part of a semi‐automated quality assurance (QA) system for pretreatment fluence verification and daily treatment verification of dynamic multileaf collimation (DMLC) delivery.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.52.–g
Verification of dose calculations with a clinical treatment planning system based on a point kernel dose engine
Authors: Weber Lars , Nilsson Per 
Published: February 2007

Dose calculations with a collapsed cone algorithm implemented in a clinical treatment planning system have been studied. The algorithm has been evaluated in homogeneous as well as in heterogeneous media, and the results have been compared to measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. Commonly encountered clinical beam configurations as well as more complex geometries have been pursued to test the limitations of the model. The results show that the accuracy level reached allows for clinical use. Some situations, e.g., large wedge beams and dose calculations in the build up region, not specific to the collapsed cone model, show deviations (outside ) compared to measurements.PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a
A new geometric and mechanical verification device for medical LINACs
Authors: Welsh Keith T. , Wlodarczyk Robert A. , Reinstein L. E. 
Published: February 2007

The goal of quality assurance (QA) for a radiation oncology medical LINAC is to maintain an acceptable level of equipment performance and reliability. The increasing complexity of Radiation Oncology equipment and treatment techniques have led to increased demands on the work load of the medical physicist. Regular testing needs to be as efficient as possible. Generally, the QA tests, as recommended by the AAPM Task Group 40 for medical LINACs, can be grouped into two categories: dosimetry and mechanical checks. A new QA device has been developed that facilitates many of the daily and monthly mechanical QA checks. Its efficiency and speed is achieved through a set of QA tools that are mounted on a single platform, which is designed to fit into the accessory mount of the medical LINAC. Named Mini‐GARD (MG), it verifies the accuracy of the digital readouts for gantry angles, collimator angles, and field sizes. It also tests crosshair position, the optical distance indicator (ODI), and patient setup laser alignment. It uses two calibrated digital levels for the gantry and collimator angle verification, an electronic tape measure for ODI verification, and a calibrated transparent projection scale for the remaining tests. This paper evaluates the stability and accuracy of the device in clinical tests over a period of a year. Results show that the MG is reliable and capable of measuring gantry and collimator angle constancy to , ODI constancy to , and field size accuracies to .PACS number(s): 87.56.Fc
PTV margin determination in conformal SRT of intracranial lesions
Authors: Parker Brent C. , Shiu Almon S. , Maor Moshe H. , Lang Frederick F. , Liu H. Helen , White R. Allen , Antolak John A. 
Published: February 2007

The planning target volume (PTV) includes the clinical target volume (CTV) to be irradiated and a margin to account for uncertainties in the treatment process. Uncertainties in miniature multileaf collimator (mMLC) leaf positioning, CT scanner spatial localization, CT‐MRI image fusion spatial localization, and Gill‐Thomas‐Cosman (GTC) relocatable head frame repositioning were quantified for the purpose of determining a minimum PTV margin that still delivers a satisfactory CTV dose. The measured uncertainties were then incorporated into a simple Monte Carlo calculation for evaluation of various margin and fraction combinations. Satisfactory CTV dosimetric criteria were selected to be a minimum CTV dose of 95% of the PTV dose and at least 95% of the CTV receiving 100% of the PTV dose. The measured uncertainties were assumed to be Gaussian distributions. Systematic errors were added linearly and random errors were added in quadrature assuming no correlation to arrive at the total combined error. The Monte Carlo simulation written for this work examined the distribution of cumulative dose volume histograms for a large patient population using various margin and fraction combinations to determine the smallest margin required to meet the established criteria. The program examined 5 and 30 fraction treatments, since those are the only fractionation schemes currently used at our institution. The fractionation schemes were evaluated using no margin, a margin of just the systematic component of the total uncertainty, and a margin of the systematic component plus one standard deviation of the total uncertainty. It was concluded that (i) a margin of the systematic error plus one standard deviation of the total uncertainty is the smallest PTV margin necessary to achieve the established CTV dose criteria, and (ii) it is necessary to determine the uncertainties introduced by the specific equipment and procedures used at each institution since the uncertainties may vary among locations.PACS number(s): 87.53.Kn, 87.53.Ly
Comparison of two algorithms for determining beam weights and wedge filters
Authors: Dai Jianrong , Zhu Yunping 
Published: February 2007

This article compares two algorithms for determining beam weights and wedge filters for conformal treatment planning. One algorithm, which is based on dose‐gradient analysis, provides analytic formulas for determining beam weights, wedge angles, and collimator angles (i.e., wedge orientations) so that the dose distribution is homogeneous in the target volume. The second algorithm is based on the concept of the super‐omni wedge (i.e., the arrangement of two pairs of orthogonal nominal wedged beams), numerically optimize beam weights, wedge angles, and collimator angles so that the dose requirements to targets and organs at risk are satisfied to the best. Three clinical cases were tested. For the first case, both algorithms resulted in comparable homogeneous dose distributions in the target volume. For the second case, the second algorithm resulted in much lower doses to the eyes plus a better homogeneous dose distribution in the target volume. For the third case, only the second algorithm was applicable, and the treatment plan it developed met the prescribed requirements. The results show that the first algorithm is better in terms of feasibility, whereas the second is better in terms of applicability and the quality of treatment plans.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j
Measured transverse‐axis dosimetric parameters of the model STM1251 interstitial source
Authors: Li Z. , Williamson J. F. 
Published: February 2007

The recent popularity of permanent implants for treatment of prostate cancer has created a large demand for low energy seed sources. Vendors have introduced new source designs to meet this demand. The AAPM has recommended that all low energy interstitial brachytherapy seed sources be subjected to independent dosimetric evaluations, preferably using experimental measurements as well as Monte Carlo calculations. This work presents the results of Thermo‐Luminescence Dosimeter (TLD) measurements of dosimetric parameters on the transverse axis of a new seed source, the Source Tech Medical STM1251 seed. Experimental measurements were performed in a Solid Water phantom, with the results corrected to values for liquid water using Monte Carlo calculated correction factors. The parameters measured include the dose rate constant and values of the radial dose function at distances of 0.5 cm through 5 cm. The measured dose rate constant in liquid water for the STM1251 seed was 1.039 cGy/U‐hr. Measured radial dose function values agreed with Monte Carlo calculated ones to within 10%. These measurements therefore confirm the modeling and simulation of Monte Carlo calculations for this source design, within the statistical uncertainties of the calculation and measurement techniques.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a
Improved method of magnification factor calculation for the angiographic measurement of neurovascular lesion dimensions
Authors: Wang Zhou , Rudin Stephen , Bednarek Daniel R. , Miskolczi Laszlo 
Published: February 2007

Accurately evaluating the size of a neurovascular lesion is essential for properly devising treatment strategies. The magnification factor must be considered in order to measure the dimension of a lesion from an angiogram. Although a method to calculate the magnification of the lesion by linear interpolation of the measurable magnification factors of two markers has been in use, this paper shows that it can be inaccurate. By deriving the exact formula for calculating the magnification factor at the level of the lesion, the error generated by the linear interpolation of magnification factor has been evaluated. This error was found to depend on source‐to‐skin distance (SSD), the location of the lesion in the head, and the head size. The closer the head is to the focal spot and the nearer the lesion is to the center of the head, the larger is the error. Since clinicians tend to use high geometric magnification (i.e., small SSD) in interventional procedures, there exists a possible consequential error of more than 3% in lesion sizing if the linear‐interpolation calculation method is used. It is thus recommended that the exact formula derived here be used to calculate the magnification factor to improve accuracy.PACS number(s): 87.57.–s, 87.57.Nk, 87.59.Dj
IMRT clinical implementation: Prostate and pelvic node irradiation using Helios and a 120‐leaf multileaf collimator
Authors: Clark C. H. , Mubata C. D. , Meehan C. A. , Bidmead A. M. , Staffurth J. , Humphreys M. E. , Dearnaley D. P. 
Published: February 2007

Dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to treat prostate and pelvic nodes using the Varian 120‐leaf Millennium multileaf collimator (MLC) has been implemented in our clinic. This paper describes the procedures that have been undertaken to achieve this, including some of the commissioning aspects of Helios, verification of the dynamic dose delivery, and quality assurance (QA) of the dose delivered to the patient. Commissioning of Helios included measurements of transmission through the 120‐leaf MLC, which were found to be 1.7% for 6 mV and 1.8% for 10 MV. The rounded leaf edge effect, known as the dosimetric separation, was also determined using two independent methods. Values of 1.05 and 1.65 mm were obtained for 6 and 10 MV beams. Five test patients were planned for prostate and pelvic node irradiation to 70 and 50 Gy, respectively. Dose and fluence verification were carried out on specially designed phantoms and dose points in the prostate were measured to be within 2.0% (mean 0.9%, s.d. 0.6%) of the calculated dose and in the nodes within 3.0% (mean 1.6%, s.d. 1.1%). Following the results of this commissioning and implementation study, we have started to treat men with a target volume including the prostate and pelvic nodes using Helios optimized dynamic IMRT delivery in a dose escalation protocol.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y
Peripheral dose distributions for a linear accelerator equipped with a secondary multileaf collimator and universal wedge
Authors: Mutic Sasa , Esthappan Jacqueline , Klein Eric E. 
Published: February 2007

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 36 (AAPM TG‐36) data can be used to estimate peripheral dose (PD) distributions outside the primary radiation field. However, the report data does not apply to linear accelerators equipped with a multileaf collimator (MLC) and universal wedge (UW). Tertiary multileaf collimators have been shown to significantly affect PD distributions and TG‐36 reported data. Measurements were performed to evaluate PD distributions for a linear accelerator equipped with a secondary MLC, backup diaphragms, and UW. This data can be used to compliment the TG‐36 report for estimation of doses to critical structures outside primary radiation fields. For the evaluated linear accelerator, an MLC is incorporated in the upper secondary collimator jaws. Backup shielding diaphragms are located underneath the MLC. At the nominal collimator position, the MLC and the backup diaphragm provide collimation primarily in the transverse direction. Conventional, solid tungsten‐alloy jaws, located underneath the backup diaphragms, provide secondary collimation in the longitudinal direction. The universal wedge provides dose modulation in the direction of the conventional jaws. Measurements were made with an ionization chamber inserted into a water‐equivalent plastic phantom with the secondary collimator and MLC settings of , and with and without UW. Data was acquired along the machine's longitudinal axis for 6, 10, and 18 MV photons. Peripheral dose distributions were measured with the collimator rotated to 0° and 270° for open field measurements and to 0°, 180°, and 270° for wedged fields (IEC 1217). This allowed evaluation of peripheral dose distributions as a function of collimator rotation. Wedged fields were normalized to deliver the same dose at the depth of maximum dose on the central axis as open fields. The measured PD distributions were generally comparable to data reported by TG‐36. At distances close to the field edge (less than 30 or 40 cm), the measured PD distributions were lower when the measurement point was shielded by solid jaws than with MLC and backup diaphragm. At longer distances, this trend reversed for all energies and evaluated field sizes. However, the difference in PD distribution with collimator rotation was not large enough to warrant strategic positioning of the collimator to reduce dose to critical structures outside the primary radiation field. Because internal scatter dominates close to the field edge, wedged PD distributions were comparable to open field doses at distances closer than 30 cm. However, at distances larger than 30 cm from the field edge, wedged PD distributions were significantly grater than those for open fields due to increased contribution of leakage radiation. Increased leakage radiation is due to the increase in wedged field monitor units, which is related to a small wedge factor (0.27 to 0.29).PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a
An immobilization and localization technique for SRT and IMRT of intracranial tumors
Authors: Leybovich Leonid B. , Sethi Anil , Dogan Nesrin , Melian Edward , Krasin Mathew , Emami Bahman 
Published: February 2007

A noninvasive localization and immobilization technique that facilitates planning and accurate delivery of both intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and linac based stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) of intracranial tumors has been developed and clinically tested. Immobilization of a patient was based on a commercially available Gill‐Thomas‐Cossman (GTC) relocatable frame. A stereotactic localization frame (LF) with the attached NOMOS localization device (CT pointer) was used for CT scanning of patients. Thus, CT slices contained fiducial marks for both IMRT and SRT. The patient anatomy and target(s) were contoured on a stand‐alone CT‐based imaging system. CT slices and contours were then transmitted to both IMRT and SRT treatment planning systems (TPSs) for concurrent development of IMRT and SRT plans. The treatment method that more closely approached the treatment goals could be selected. Since all TPSs used the same contour set, the accuracy of competing treatment plans comparison was improved. SRT delivery was done conventionally. For IMRT delivery patients used the SRT patient immobilization system. For the patient setup, the IMRT target box was attached to the SRT LF, replacing the IMRT CT Pointer. A modified and lighter IMRT target box compatible with SRT LF was fabricated. The proposed technique can also be used for planning and delivery of 3D CRT, thus improving its accuracy. Day‐to‐day reproducibility of the patient setup can be evaluated using a SRT Depth Helmet.PACS number(s): 87.53.Kn, 87.53Ly, 87.56.Da
Assessment of consistency in contouring of normal‐tissue anatomic structures
Authors: Collier Dawn C. , Burnett Stuart S. C. , Amin Mayankkumar , Bilton Stephen , Brooks Christopher , Ryan Amanda , Roniger Dominique , Tran Danny , Starkschall George 
Published: February 2007

The purpose of this work is to estimate the uncertainty in the manual contouring of normal anatomical structures. The heart, esophagus, and spinal cord were contoured manually on six sets of computed tomography images by six dosimetrists whose experience ranged from 1 year to over 15 years. To determine the differences between inter‐ and intraobserver variations, each data set was contoured by one of the dosimetrists five times and once each by the five other dosimetrists. The magnitude of the discrepancies in delineating the contours was assessed. Intradosimetrist contouring discrepancies were as follows: esophagus, average 0.3 cm and maximum 2.9 cm; heart, average 0.5 cm and maximum 7.6 cm; and spinal cord, average 0.1 cm and maximum 0.7 cm. Interdosimetrist contouring discrepancies were as follows: esophagus, average 0.4 cm and maximum 3.1 cm; heart, average 0.7 cm and maximum 8.1 cm; and spinal cord, average 0.2 cm and maximum 0.9 cm. Significant discrepancies can occur when normal anatomic structures are contoured manually. Interdosimetrist discrepancies are typically slightly greater than intradosimetrist discrepancies. The magnitude of the discrepancies does not appear to be correlated to the experience of the dosimetrist. © 2003 American College of Medical Physics.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a