The introduction of advanced techniques and technology in radiotherapy has greatly improved our ability to deliver highly conformal tumor doses while minimizing the dose to adjacent organs at risk. Despite these tremendous improvements, there remains a general concern about doses to normal tissues that are not the target of the radiation treatment; any “nontarget” radiation should be minimized as it offers no therapeutic benefit. As patients live longer after treatment, there is increased opportunity for late effects including second cancers and cardiac toxicity to manifest. Complicating the management of these issues, there are unique challenges with measuring, calculating, reducing, and reporting nontarget doses that many medical physicists may have limited experience with. Treatment planning systems become dramatically inaccurate outside the treatment field, necessitating a measurement or some other means of assessing the dose. However, measurements are challenging because outside the treatment field, the radiation energy spectrum, dose rate, and general shape of the dose distribution (particularly the percent depth dose) are very different and often require special consideration. Neutron dosimetry is also particularly challenging, and common errors in methodology can easily manifest as errors of several orders of magnitude. Task Group 158 was, therefore, formed to provide guidance for physicists in terms of assessing and managing nontarget doses. In particular, the report: (a) highlights major concerns with nontarget radiation; (b) provides a rough estimate of doses associated with different treatment approaches in clinical practice; (c) discusses the uses of dosimeters for measuring photon, electron, and neutron doses; (d) discusses the use of calculation techniques for dosimetric evaluations; (e) highlights techniques that may be considered for reducing nontarget doses; (f) discusses dose reporting; and (g) makes recommendations for both clinical and research practice.

https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mp.12462

AAPM TG 158: Measurement and calculation of doses outside the treated volume from external-beam radiation therapy.

Based on its potent capacity to induce tumor cell death and to abrogate clonogenic survival, radiotherapy is a key part of multimodal cancer treatment approaches. Numerous clinical trials have documented the clear correlation between improved local control and increased overall survival. However, despite all progress, the efficacy of radiation-based treatment approaches is still limited by different technological, biological, and clinical constraints. In principle, the following major issues can be distinguished: (1) The intrinsic radiation resistance of several tumors is higher than that of the surrounding normal tissue, (2) the true patho-anatomical borders of tumors or areas at risk are not perfectly identifiable, (3) the treatment volume cannot be adjusted properly during a given treatment series, and (4) the individual heterogeneity in terms of tumor and normal tissue responses toward irradiation is immense. At present, research efforts in radiation oncology follow three major tracks, in order to address these limitations: (1) implementation of molecularly targeted agents and ‘omics’-based screening and stratification procedures, (2) improvement of treatment planning, imaging, and accuracy of dose application, and (3) clinical implementation of other types of radiation, including protons and heavy ions. Several of these strategies have already revealed promising improvements with regard to clinical outcome. Nevertheless, many open questions remain with individualization of treatment approaches being a key problem. In the present review, the current status of radiation-based cancer treatment with particular focus on novel aspects and developments that will influence the field of radiation oncology in the near future is summarized and discussed.

/pdf/current-concepts-in-clinical-radiation-oncology-1kpd8rruvr.pdf

Current concepts in clinical radiation oncology.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT.

https://findresearcher.sdu.dk:8443/ws/files/128913672/Automatic_treatment_planning_improves_the_clinical_quality_of_Head_and_Neck_cancer_treatment_plans.pdf

Automatic treatment planning improves the clinical quality of head and neck cancer treatment plans

Compared to static beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), the main advantage of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is a shortened delivery time, which leads to improved patient comfort and possibly smaller intra-fraction movements. This study aims at a treatment planner-independent comparison of radiotherapy treatment planning of IMRT and VMAT for head-and-neck cancer performed by several institutes and based on the same CT- and contouring data. Five institutes generated IMRT and VMAT plans for five oropharyngeal cancer patients using either Pinnacle3 or Oncentra Masterplan to be delivered on Elekta linear accelerators. Comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans within the same patient and institute showed significantly better sparing for almost all OARs with VMAT. The average mean dose to the parotid glands and oral cavity was reduced from 27.2 Gy and 39.4 Gy for IMRT to 25.0 Gy and 36.7 Gy for VMAT, respectively. The dose conformity at 95% of the prescribed dose for PTVboost and PTVtotal was 1.45 and 1.62 for IMRT and 1.37 and 1.50 for VMAT, respectively. The average effective delivery time was reduced from 13:15 min for IMRT to 5:54 min for VMAT. Independently of institution-specific optimization strategies, the quality of the VMAT plans including double arcs was superior to step-and-shoot IMRT plans including 5–9 beam ports, while the effective treatment delivery time was shortened by ~50% with VMAT.

/pdf/multi-institutional-comparison-of-volumetric-modulated-arc-200fhmsxyr.pdf

Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study

Recent developments enable to deliver rotational IMRT with standard C-arm gantry based linear accelerators. This upcoming treatment technique was benchmarked in a multi-center treatment planning study against static gantry IMRT and rotational IMRT based on a ring gantry for a complex parotid gland sparing head-and-neck technique. Treatment plans were created for 10 patients with head-and-neck tumours (oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx) using the following treatment planning systems (TPS) for rotational IMRT: Monaco (ELEKTA VMAT solution), Eclipse (Varian RapidArc solution) and HiArt for the helical tomotherapy (Tomotherapy). Planning of static gantry IMRT was performed with KonRad, Pinnacle and Panther DAO based on steps and mean HI values varied from 0.05 to 0.10. The mean values of the median doses of the spared parotid were 26.5Gy for RapidArc and 23Gy for VMAT, 14.1Gy for Tomo. For fixed gantry techniques 21Gy was achieved for step&shoot+KonRad, 17.0Gy for step&shoot+Panther DAO, 23.3Gy for step&shoot+Pinnacle and 18.6Gy for sliding window. V5Gy values were lowest for the sliding window IMRT technique (3499 ccm) and largest for RapidArc (5480 ccm). The lowest mean MU value of 408 was achieved by Panther DAO, compared to 1140 for sliding window IMRT. All IMRT delivery technologies with their associated TPS provide plans with satisfying target coverage while at the same time respecting the defined OAR criteria. Sliding window IMRT, RapidArc and Tomo techniques resulted in better target dose homogeneity compared to VMAT and step&shoot IMRT. Rotational IMRT based on C-arm linacs and Tomotherapy seem to be advantageous with respect to OAR sparing and treatment delivery efficiency, at the cost of higher dose delivered to normal tissues. The overall treatment plan quality using Tomo seems to be better than the other TPS technology combinations.

/pdf/rotational-imrt-techniques-compared-to-fixed-gantry-imrt-and-13i79gy0r1.pdf

Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and Tomotherapy: multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases

Neurocognitive decline observed after radiotherapy (RT) for brain tumors in long time survivors is attributed to radiation exposure of the hippocampus and the subventricular zone (SVZ). The potential of sparing capabilities for both structures by optimized intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy (IMSRT) is investigated. Brain tumors were irradiated by stereotactic 3D conformal RT or IMSRT using m3 collimator optimized for PTV and for sparing of the conventional OARs (lens, retina, optic nerve, chiasm, cochlea, brain stem and the medulla oblongata). Retrospectively both hippocampi and SVZ were added to the list of OAR and their dose volume histograms were compared to those from two newly generated IMSRT plans using 7 or 14 beamlets (IMSRT-7, IMSRT-14) dedicated for optimized additional sparing of these structures. Conventional OAR constraints were kept constant. Impact of plan complexity and planning target volume (PTV) topography on sparing of both hippocampi and SVZ, conformity index (CI), the homogeneity index (HI) and quality of coverage (QoC) were analyzed. Limits of agreement were used to compare sparing of stem cell niches with either IMSRT-7 or IMSRT-14. The influence of treatment technique related to the topography ratio between PTV and OARs, realized in group A-D, was assessed by a mixed model. In 47 patients CI (p ≤ 0.003) and HI (p < 0.001) improved by IMSRT-7, IMSRT-14, QoC remained stable (p ≥ 0.50) indicating no compromise in radiotherapy. 90% of normal brain was exposed to a significantly higher dose using IMSRT. IMSRT-7 plans resulted in significantly lower biologically effective doses at all four neural stem cell structures, while contralateral neural stem cells are better spared compared to ipsilateral. A further increase of the number of beamlets (IMSRT-14) did not improve sparing significantly, so IMSRT-7 and IMSRT-14 can be used interchangeable. Patients with tumors contacting neither the subventricular zone nor the cortex benefit most from IMSRT (p < 0.001). The feasibility of neural stem cell niches sparing with sophisticated linac based inverse IMSRT with 7 beamlets in an unselected cohort of intracranial tumors in relation to topographic situation has been demonstrated. Clinical relevance testing neurotoxicity remains to be demonstrated.

/pdf/neural-stem-cell-sparing-by-linac-based-intensity-modulated-3pg92kbe2y.pdf

Neural stem cell sparing by linac based intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy in intracranial tumors

Abstract The biplanar diode arrays Delta4PT and Delta4+ has been used in our hospital since the introduction of the TomoTherapy in 2013 to ensure a good agreement between the calculated and the measured dose distributions in patient-related QA with helical TomoTherapy. The aim of this presentation is to evaluate the quality of the measurement procedure with the Delta4 phantoms Delta4PT and (since January 2016) Delta4+. This includes the influence of a cross calibration with a treatment plan with low modulation. Two analyses were performed: (i) All treatment plans in a period of three months (n=86) were not only calculated and measured with Delta4PT or Delta4+ but also with an ionization chamber (Exradin A1SL) in the homogeneous “cheese phantom”. (ii) All data measured from January 2016 to April 2017 (Delta4+, n=132) were analyzed regarding median dose deviation, Gamma analysis and others. The comparison with chamber measurements shows that all measurements with Delta4 and almost all with the ionization chambers (79 of 86) yield a deviation of measured vs. planned dose in the PTV of less than 2.5%, but with a lower variation of the Delta4 measurements. However, a strong correlation between both was not observed. The separate analysis of the measurements with the newer Delta4+ (since January 2016) shows a mean dose deviation in the PTVs of only 0.14% with a standard deviation (S.D.) of 0.69%. Before every measurement a cross calibration has been performed. Without this cross calibration, the deviation would be 0.96% with an increased standard deviation of 0.93%. It is concluded that the Delta4 systems are well suited for patient-related QA for helical TomoTherapy treatment plans. The comparison with chamber measurements shows a plausible accordance between both systems whereas the variation of single measurements is quite different. With the help of a daily cross calibration the variability of the Delta4 results is further decreased and the results show higher accuracy and reliability. According to our experience, a daily cross calibration is mandatory for a reliable patient-related QA.

Patient-related QA for helical TomoTherapy with Delta4: analysis of the results

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Tim Brachwitz

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and Tomotherapy: multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases

Neural stem cell sparing by linac based intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy in intracranial tumors

Patient-related QA for helical TomoTherapy with Delta4: analysis of the results