Search results for: L. Rutonjski

Authors: B. Petrović, L. Rutonjski, M. Baucal, M. Teodorović, O. Čudić, B. Basarić

Abstract:

Radiotherapy treatment planning computers use CT data of the patient. For the computation of a treatment plan, treatment planning system must have an information on electron densities of tissues scanned by CT. This information is given by the conversion curve CT (CT number) to ED (electron density), or simply calibration curve. Every treatment planning system (TPS) has built in default CT to ED conversion curves, for the CTs of different manufacturers. However, it is always recommended to verify the CT to ED conversion curve before actual clinical use. Objective of this study was to check how the default curve already provided matches the curve actually measured on a specific CT, and how much it influences the calculation of a treatment planning computer. The examined CT scanners were from the same manufacturer, but four different scanners from three generations. The measurements of all calibration curves were done with the dedicated phantom CIRS 062M Electron Density Phantom. The phantom was scanned, and according to real HU values read at the CT console computer, CT to ED conversion curves were generated for different materials, for same tube voltage 140 kV. Another phantom, CIRS Thorax 002 LFC which represents an average human torso in proportion, density and two-dimensional structure, was used for verification. The treatment planning was done on CT slices of scanned CIRS LFC 002 phantom, for selected cases. Interest points were set in the lungs, and in the spinal cord, and doses recorded in TPS. The overall calculated treatment times for four scanners and default scanner did not differ more than 0.8%. Overall interest point dose in bone differed max 0.6% while for single fields was maximum 2.7% (lateral field). Overall interest point dose in lungs differed max 1.1% while for single fields was maximum 2.6% (lateral field). It is known that user should verify the CT to ED conversion curve, but often, developing countries are facing lack of QA equipment, and often use default data provided. We have concluded that the CT to ED curves obtained differ in certain points of a curve, generally in the region of higher densities. This influences the treatment planning result which is not significant, but definitely does make difference in the calculated dose.

Keywords: Computation of treatment plan, conversion curve, radiotherapy, electron density

Procedia PDF Downloads 445

Authors: B. Petrović, M. Petrović, L. Rutonjski, I. Djan, V. Ivanović

Abstract:

Objective: Cardiac pacemakers are very sensitive to radiotherapy treatment from two sources: electromagnetic influence from the medical linear accelerator producing ionizing radiation- influencing electronics within the pacemaker, and the absorption of dose to the device. On the other hand, patients with cardiac pacemakers at the place of a tumor are rather rare, and single clinic hardly has experience with the management of such patients. The widely accepted international guidelines for management of radiation oncology patients recommend that these patients should be closely monitored and examined before, during and after radiotherapy treatment by cardiologist, and their device and condition followed up. The number of patients having both cancer and pacemaker, is growing every year, as both cancer incidence, as well as cardiac diseases incidence, are inevitably growing figures. Materials and methods: Female patient, age 69, was diagnozed with valvular cardiomyopathy and got implanted a pacemaker in 2005 and prosthetic mitral valve in 1993 (cancer was diagnosed in 2012). She was stable cardiologically and came to radiation therapy department with the diagnosis of right breast cancer, with the tumor in upper lateral quadrant of the right breast. Since she had all lymph nodes positive (28 in total), she had to have irradiated the supraclavicular region, as well as the breast with the tumor bed. She previously received chemotherapy, approved by the cardiologist. The patient was estimated to be with the high risk as device was within the field of irradiation, and the patient had high dependence on her pacemaker. The radiation therapy plan was conducted as 3D conformal therapy. The delineated target was breast with supraclavicular region, where the pacemaker was actually placed, with the addition of a pacemaker as organ at risk, to estimate the dose to the device and its components as recommended, and the breast. The targets received both 50 Gy in 25 fractions (where 20% of a pacemaker received 50 Gy, and 60% of a device received 40 Gy). The electrode to the heart received between 1 Gy and 50 Gy. Verification of dose planned and delivered was performed. Results: Evaluation of the patient status according to the guidelines and especially evaluation of all associated risks to the patient during treatment was done. Patient was irradiated by prescribed dose and followed up for the whole year, with no symptoms of failure of the pacemaker device during, or after treatment in follow up period. The functionality of a device was estimated to be unchanged, according to the parameters (electrode impedance and battery energy). Conclusion: Patient was closely monitored according to published guidelines during irradiation and afterwards. Pacemaker irradiated with the full dose did not show any signs of failure despite recommendations data, but in correlation with other published data.

Keywords: cardiac pacemaker, breast cancer, radiotherapy treatment planning, complications of treatment

Procedia PDF Downloads 406

Authors: B. Petrović, L. Rutonjski, M. Baucal, M. Teodorović, O. Čudić, B. Basarić

Abstract:

Purpose/Objective: Radiotherapy treatment planning requires use of CT simulator, in order to acquire CT images. The overall performance of CT simulator determines the quality of radiotherapy treatment plan, and at the end, the outcome of treatment for every single patient. Therefore, it is strongly advised by international recommendations, to set up a quality control procedures for every machine involved in radiotherapy treatment planning process, including the CT scanner/ simulator. The overall process requires number of tests, which are used on daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis, depending on the feature tested. Materials/Methods: Two phantoms were used: a dedicated phantom CIRS 062QA, and a QA phantom obtained with the CT simulator. The examined CT simulator was Siemens Somatom Definition as Open, dedicated for radiation therapy treatment planning. The CT simulator has a built in software, which enables fast and simple evaluation of CT QA parameters, using the phantom provided with the CT simulator. On the other hand, recommendations contain additional test, which were done with the CIRS phantom. Also, legislation on ionizing radiation protection requires CT testing in defined periods of time. Taking into account the requirements of law, built in tests of a CT simulator, and international recommendations, the intitutional QC programme for CT imulator is defined, and implemented. Results: The CT simulator parameters evaluated through the study were following: CT number accuracy, field uniformity, complete CT to ED conversion curve, spatial and contrast resolution, image noise, slice thickness, and patient table stability.The following limits are established and implemented: CT number accuracy limits are +/- 5 HU of the value at the comissioning. Field uniformity: +/- 10 HU in selected ROIs. Complete CT to ED curve for each tube voltage must comply with the curve obtained at comissioning, with deviations of not more than 5%. Spatial and contrast resultion tests must comply with the tests obtained at comissioning, otherwise machine requires service. Result of image noise test must fall within the limit of 20% difference of the base value. Slice thickness must meet manufacturer specifications, and patient stability with longitudinal transfer of loaded table must not differ of more than 2mm vertical deviation. Conclusion: The implemented QA tests gave overall basic understanding of CT simulator functionality and its clinical effectiveness in radiation treatment planning. The legal requirement to the clinic is to set up it’s own QA programme, with minimum testing, but it remains user’s decision whether additional testing, as recommended by international organizations, will be implemented, so to improve the overall quality of radiation treatment planning procedure, as the CT image quality used for radiation treatment planning, influences the delineation of a tumor and calculation accuracy of treatment planning system, and finally delivery of radiation treatment to a patient.

Keywords: CT simulator, radiotherapy, quality control, QA programme

Procedia PDF Downloads 493