Useful island block geometries of a passive intensity modulator used for intensity-modulated bolus electron conformal therapy

被引:4
|
作者
Chambers, Erin L. [1 ]
Carver, Robert L. [1 ,2 ]
Hogstrom, Kenneth R. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Louisiana State Univ, Dept Phys & Astron, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA
[2] Mary Bird Perkins Canc Ctr, Baton Rouge, LA 70809 USA
来源
关键词
electron therapy; intensity modulation; bolus; conformal therapy; BEAM REDEFINITION ALGORITHM; DOSE CALCULATIONS; DESIGN; POSTMASTECTOMY; DOSIMETRY;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.13079
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose This project determined the range of island block geometric configurations useful for the clinical utilization of intensity-modulated bolus electron conformal therapy (IM-BECT). Methods Multiple half-beam island block geometries were studied for seven electron energies 7-20 MeV at 100 and 103 cm source-to-surface distance (SSD). We studied relative fluence distributions at 0.5 cm and 2.0 cm depths in water, resulting in 28 unique beam conditions. For each beam condition, we studied intensity reduction factor (IRF) values of 0.70, 0.75, 0.80, 0.85, 0.90, and 0.95, and hexagonal packing separations for the island blocks of 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, and 1.50 cm, that is, 30 unique IM configurations and 840 unique beam-IM combinations. A combination was deemed acceptable if the average intensity downstream of the intensity modulator agreed within 2% of that intended and the variation in fluence was less than +/- 2%. Results For 100 cm SSD, and for 0.5 cm depth, results showed that beam energies above 13 MeV did not exhibit sufficient scatter to produce clinically acceptable fluence (intensity) distributions for all IRF values (0.70-0.95). In particular, 20 MeV fluence distributions were unacceptable for any values, and acceptable 16 MeV fluence distributions were limited to a minimum IRF of 0.85. For the 2.0 cm depth, beam energies up to and including 20 MeV had acceptable fluence distributions. For 103 cm SSD and for 0.5 cm and 2.0 cm depths, results showed that all beam energies (7-20 MeV) had clinically acceptable fluence distributions for all IRF values (0.70-0.95). In general, the more clinically likely 103 cm SSD had acceptable fluence distributions with larger separations (r), which allow larger block diameters. Conclusion The geometric operating range of island block separations and IRF values (block diameters) producing clinically appropriate IM electron beams has been determined.
引用
收藏
页码:131 / 145
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Evaluation of a mixed beam therapy for postmastectomy breast cancer patients: Bolus electron conformal therapy combined with intensity modulated photon radiotherapy and volumetric modulated photon arc therapy
    Zhang, Rui
    Heins, David
    Sanders, Mary
    Guo, Beibei
    Hogstrom, Kenneth
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (07) : 2912 - 2924
  • [32] Toxicity and Survival After Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Passive Scattering Proton Therapy for NSCLC
    Gjyshi, Olsi
    Xu, Ting
    Elhammali, Adnan
    Boyce-Fappiano, David
    Chun, Stephen G.
    Gandhi, Saumil
    Lee, Percy
    Chen, Aileen B.
    Lin, Steven H.
    Chang, Joe Y.
    Tsao, Anne
    Gay, Carl M.
    Zhu, X. Ronald
    Zhang, Xiaodong
    Heymach, John V.
    Fossella, Frank V.
    Lu, Charles
    Nguyen, Quynh-Nhu
    Liao, Zhongxing
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2021, 16 (02) : 269 - 277
  • [33] Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Proton Therapy, or Conformal Radiation Therapy and Morbidity and Disease Control in Localized Prostate Cancer
    Sheets, Nathan C.
    Goldin, Gregg H.
    Meyer, Anne-Marie
    Wu, Yang
    Chang, YunKyung
    Stuermer, Til
    Holmes, Jordan A.
    Reeve, Bryce B.
    Godley, Paul A.
    Carpenter, William R.
    Chen, Ronald C.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (15): : 1611 - 1620
  • [34] Study On Secondary Cancer Risk Induced by Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Passive Proton Beam Therapy
    Ahn, Sung Hwan
    Kim, Jingsung
    Cheong, Minho
    Shin, Dong Ho
    Park, Sung Yong
    Lee, Se Byeong
    Yoon, Myounggeun
    Kim, Woojin
    Park, Seokhwan
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (06) : 2630 - +
  • [35] Study of intensity-modulated photon-electron radiation therapy using digital phantoms
    Ge, Yuanyuan
    Faddegon, Bruce A.
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2011, 56 (20): : 6693 - 6708
  • [36] Neurological function in children with infratentorial ependymoma following conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CRT/IMRT)
    Morris, E. Brannon
    Khan, Raja B.
    Li, Chenghong
    Xiong, Xiaoping
    Merchant, Thomas
    ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY, 2007, 62 : S103 - S104
  • [37] Breast Conformal Radiotherapy with Sequential Boost Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with a Simultaneously Integrated Boost
    Komisopoulos, G.
    Mavroidis, P.
    Simopoulou, F.
    Kyrgias, G.
    Papanikolaou, N.
    Theodorou, K.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (06) : E913 - E913
  • [38] Comparative outcomes for three-dimensional conformal versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for esophageal cancer
    Freilich, J.
    Hoffe, S. E.
    Almhanna, K.
    Dinwoodie, W.
    Yue, B.
    Fulp, W.
    Meredith, K. L.
    Shridhar, R.
    DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2015, 28 (04) : 352 - 357
  • [39] Intensity-modulated proton therapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and 3D conformal radiotherapy in anaplastic astrocytoma and glioblastoma
    Adeberg, S.
    Harrabil, S. B.
    Bougatf, N.
    Bernhardt, D.
    Rieber, J.
    Koerber, S. A.
    Syed, M.
    Sprave, T.
    Mohr, A.
    Abdollahi, A.
    Haberer, T.
    Combs, S. E.
    Herfarth, K.
    Debus, J.
    Rieken, S.
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2016, 192 (11) : 770 - 779
  • [40] Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy as Adjuvant Therapy for Gastric Cancer
    Minn, A. Yuriko
    Hsu, Annie
    La, Trang
    Kunz, Pamela
    Fisher, George A.
    Ford, James M.
    Norton, Jeffrey A.
    Visser, Brendan
    Goodman, Karyn A.
    Koong, Albert C.
    Chang, Daniel T.
    CANCER, 2010, 116 (16) : 3943 - 3952