Geofferry S. Ibbott


2 Dosimetric Comparison among Different Head and Neck Radiotherapy Techniques Using PRESAGE™ Dosimeter

Authors: Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Isa Khan, Jalil Ur Rehman, Geofferry S. Ibbott, Ramesh C. Tailor, Jahnzeeb Ashraf


Purpose: The purpose of this analysis was to investigate dose distribution of different techniques (3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT) of head and neck cancer using 3-dimensional dosimeter called PRESAGETM Dosimeter. Materials and Methods: Computer tomography (CT) scans of radiological physics center (RPC) head and neck anthropomorphic phantom with both RPC standard insert and PRESAGETM insert were acquired separated with Philipp’s CT scanner and both CT scans were exported via DICOM to the Pinnacle version 9.4 treatment planning system (TPS). Each plan was delivered twice to the RPC phantom first containing the RPC standard insert having TLD and film dosimeters and then again containing the Presage insert having 3-D dosimeter (PRESAGETM) by using a Varian True Beam linear accelerator. After irradiation, the standard insert including point dose measurements (TLD) and planar Gafchromic® EBT film measurement were read using RPC standard procedure. The 3D dose distribution from PRESAGETM was read out with the Duke Midsized optical scanner dedicated to RPC (DMOS-RPC). Dose volume histogram (DVH), mean and maximal doses for organs at risk were calculated and compared among each head and neck technique. The prescription dose was same for all head and neck radiotherapy techniques which was 6.60 Gy/friction. Beam profile comparison and gamma analysis were used to quantify agreements among film measurement, PRESAGETM measurement and calculated dose distribution. Quality assurances of all plans were performed by using ArcCHECK method. Results: VMAT delivered the lowest mean and maximum doses to organ at risk (spinal cord, parotid) than IMRT and 3DCRT. Such dose distribution was verified by absolute dose distribution using thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) system. The central axial, sagittal and coronal planes were evaluated using 2D gamma map criteria(± 5%/3 mm) and results were 99.82% (axial), 99.78% (sagital), 98.38% (coronal) for VMAT plan and found the agreement between PRESAGE and pinnacle was better than IMRT and 3D-CRT plan excludes a 7 mm rim at the edge of the dosimeter. Profile showed good agreement for all plans between film, PRESAGE and pinnacle and 3D gamma was performed for PTV and OARs, VMAT and 3DCRT endow with better agreement than IMRT. Conclusion: VMAT delivered lowered mean and maximal doses to organs at risk and better PTV coverage during head and neck radiotherapy. TLD, EBT film and PRESAGETM dosimeters suggest that VMAT was better for the treatment of head and neck cancer than IMRT and 3D-CRT.


Procedia PDF Downloads 273
1 Reduction of the Risk of Secondary Cancer Induction Using VMAT for Head and Neck Cancer

Authors: Muhammad Afzal, Jalil Ur Rehman, Ramesh C, Tailor, Isa Khan, Jahanzeeb Ashraf, Geofferry S. Ibbott


The purpose of this analysis is to estimate secondary cancer risks after VMAT compared to other modalities of head and neck radiotherapy (IMRT, 3DCRT). Computer tomography (CT) scans of Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck phantom were acquired with CT scanner and exported via DICOM to the treatment planning system (TPS). Treatment planning was done using four arc (182-178 and 180-184, clockwise and anticlockwise) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) , Nine fields (200, 240, 280, 320,0,40,80,120 and 160), which has been commonly used at MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and four fields for three dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) were used. True beam linear accelerator of 6MV photon energy was used for dose delivery, and dose calculation was done with CC convolution algorithm with prescription dose of 6.6 Gy. Primary Target Volume (PTV) coverage, mean and maximal doses, DVHs and volumes receiving more than 2 Gy and 3.8 Gy of OARs were calculated and compared. Absolute point dose and planar dose were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and GafChromic EBT2 film, respectively. Quality Assurance of VMAT and IMRT were performed by using ArcCHECK method with gamma index criteria of 3%/3mm dose difference to distance to agreement (DD/DTA). PTV coverage was found 90.80 %, 95.80 % and 95.82 % for 3DCRT, IMRT and VMAT respectively. VMAT delivered the lowest maximal doses to esophagus (2.3 Gy), brain (4.0 Gy) and thyroid (2.3 Gy) compared to all other studied techniques. In comparison, maximal doses for 3DCRT were found higher than VMAT for all studied OARs. Whereas, IMRT delivered maximal higher doses 26%, 5% and 26% for esophagus, normal brain and thyroid, respectively, compared to VMAT. It was noted that esophagus volume receiving more than 2 Gy was 3.6 % for VMAT, 23.6 % for IMRT and up to 100 % for 3DCRT. Good agreement was observed between measured doses and those calculated with TPS. The averages relative standard errors (RSE) of three deliveries within eight TLD capsule locations were, 0.9%, 0.8% and 0.6% for 3DCRT, IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The gamma analysis for all plans met the ±5%/3 mm criteria (over 90% passed) and results of QA were greater than 98%. The calculations for maximal doses and volumes of OARs suggest that the estimated risk of secondary cancer induction after VMAT is considerably lower than IMRT and 3DCRT.

Keywords: TLD, IMRT, VMAT, RPC, EBT2 film

Procedia PDF Downloads 381