Planning and dosimetric evaluation of three total body irradiation techniques: Standard SSD VMAT, Extended SSD VMAT and Extended SSD Field-in-Field
The aim of this study was to dosimetrically compare three total body irradiation (TBI) techniques which can be delivered by a standard linear accelerator, and to deduce which one is preferable. Specifically, Extended Source to Surface Distance (SSD) Field-in-Field (FiF), Extended SSD Volumetric Modu...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Radiation and environmental biophysics 2023-03, Vol.62 (1), p.73-81 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 81 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 73 |
| container_title | Radiation and environmental biophysics |
| container_volume | 62 |
| creator | Cananoglu, Mert Hurmuz, Pervin Yeginer, Mete Ozyigit, Gokhan |
| description | The aim of this study was to dosimetrically compare three total body irradiation (TBI) techniques which can be delivered by a standard linear accelerator, and to deduce which one is preferable. Specifically, Extended Source to Surface Distance (SSD) Field-in-Field (FiF), Extended SSD Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), and Standard SSD VMAT TBI techniques were dosimetrically evaluated. Percent depth dose and dose profile measurements were made under treatment conditions for each specified technique. After having generated treatment plans with a treatment planning system (TPS), dose homogeneity and critical organ doses were investigated on a Rando phantom using radiochromic films and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs). TBI dose of 12 Gy in six fractions was prescribed for each technique. The gamma index (5%/5 mm) was used for the analysis of radiochromic films. Passing rates for Extended SSD FiF, Extended SSD VMAT and Standard SSD VMAT techniques were found to be 90%, 87% and 94%, respectively. OSLD measurements were within ± 5% agreement with TPS calculations for the first two techniques whereas the agreement was found to be within ± 3% for the Standard SSD VMAT technique. TPS calculations demonstrated that mean lung doses in the first two techniques were around 8.5 Gy while it was kept around 7 Gy in Standard SSD VMAT. It is concluded that Standard SSD VMAT is superior in sparing the lung tissue while all three TBI techniques are feasible in clinical practice with acceptable dose homogeneity. In the absence of VMAT-based treatment planning, Extended SSD FiF would be a reasonable choice compared to other conventional techniques. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00411-022-00999-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2727640569</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2727640569</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-6b84adc72d75ce157272abb4784a4e8596ca0bad5a0755462456a5260d479e1d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9uFDEMxiMEosvCC3BAkbhwIJBk8mfDrSotIBWBtAVxizITb5tqNilJBm2fgxcm3SlUcOAUx_75s-UPoaeMvmKU6teFUsEYoZwTSo0xZHcPLZjoOOHtex8taEcZUZ34doAelXJJKdNKmYfooFNcmc6wBfr5eXQxhniOXfTYpxK2UHMYMPxw4-RqSBGnDa4XGQDXVN2I--SvccjZ-TDXKwwXMXyfoLzB69p0XPZ4vX6Lv348PHuJj3cVooe71H7UX9mTAKMnIZJ98Bg92LixwJPbd4m-nByfHb0np5_efTg6PCUDl6oS1a-E84PmXssBmNRcc9f3Qre0gJU0anC0d146qqUUigupnOSKeqENMN8t0YtZ9yqnm-2r3YYywNguAmkqtulpJahsp1qi5_-gl2nKsW3XKG24pkquGsVnasiplAwbe5XD1uVry6i9sczOltlmmd1bZnet6dmt9NRvwf9p-e1RA7oZKK0UzyHfzf6P7C-o06El</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2779270658</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Planning and dosimetric evaluation of three total body irradiation techniques: Standard SSD VMAT, Extended SSD VMAT and Extended SSD Field-in-Field</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Cananoglu, Mert ; Hurmuz, Pervin ; Yeginer, Mete ; Ozyigit, Gokhan</creator><creatorcontrib>Cananoglu, Mert ; Hurmuz, Pervin ; Yeginer, Mete ; Ozyigit, Gokhan</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to dosimetrically compare three total body irradiation (TBI) techniques which can be delivered by a standard linear accelerator, and to deduce which one is preferable. Specifically, Extended Source to Surface Distance (SSD) Field-in-Field (FiF), Extended SSD Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), and Standard SSD VMAT TBI techniques were dosimetrically evaluated. Percent depth dose and dose profile measurements were made under treatment conditions for each specified technique. After having generated treatment plans with a treatment planning system (TPS), dose homogeneity and critical organ doses were investigated on a Rando phantom using radiochromic films and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs). TBI dose of 12 Gy in six fractions was prescribed for each technique. The gamma index (5%/5 mm) was used for the analysis of radiochromic films. Passing rates for Extended SSD FiF, Extended SSD VMAT and Standard SSD VMAT techniques were found to be 90%, 87% and 94%, respectively. OSLD measurements were within ± 5% agreement with TPS calculations for the first two techniques whereas the agreement was found to be within ± 3% for the Standard SSD VMAT technique. TPS calculations demonstrated that mean lung doses in the first two techniques were around 8.5 Gy while it was kept around 7 Gy in Standard SSD VMAT. It is concluded that Standard SSD VMAT is superior in sparing the lung tissue while all three TBI techniques are feasible in clinical practice with acceptable dose homogeneity. In the absence of VMAT-based treatment planning, Extended SSD FiF would be a reasonable choice compared to other conventional techniques.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-634X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2099</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00411-022-00999-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36269391</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Biological and Medical Physics ; Biophysics ; Dosimetry ; Ecosystems ; Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection ; Environmental Physics ; Evaluation ; Homogeneity ; Irradiation ; Lungs ; Mathematical analysis ; Monitoring/Environmental Analysis ; Organs at Risk - radiation effects ; Original Article ; Physics ; Physics and Astronomy ; Planning ; Radiation ; Radiometry - methods ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ; Whole-Body Irradiation - methods</subject><ispartof>Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2023-03, Vol.62 (1), p.73-81</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-6b84adc72d75ce157272abb4784a4e8596ca0bad5a0755462456a5260d479e1d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00411-022-00999-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00411-022-00999-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36269391$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cananoglu, Mert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurmuz, Pervin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeginer, Mete</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozyigit, Gokhan</creatorcontrib><title>Planning and dosimetric evaluation of three total body irradiation techniques: Standard SSD VMAT, Extended SSD VMAT and Extended SSD Field-in-Field</title><title>Radiation and environmental biophysics</title><addtitle>Radiat Environ Biophys</addtitle><addtitle>Radiat Environ Biophys</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to dosimetrically compare three total body irradiation (TBI) techniques which can be delivered by a standard linear accelerator, and to deduce which one is preferable. Specifically, Extended Source to Surface Distance (SSD) Field-in-Field (FiF), Extended SSD Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), and Standard SSD VMAT TBI techniques were dosimetrically evaluated. Percent depth dose and dose profile measurements were made under treatment conditions for each specified technique. After having generated treatment plans with a treatment planning system (TPS), dose homogeneity and critical organ doses were investigated on a Rando phantom using radiochromic films and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs). TBI dose of 12 Gy in six fractions was prescribed for each technique. The gamma index (5%/5 mm) was used for the analysis of radiochromic films. Passing rates for Extended SSD FiF, Extended SSD VMAT and Standard SSD VMAT techniques were found to be 90%, 87% and 94%, respectively. OSLD measurements were within ± 5% agreement with TPS calculations for the first two techniques whereas the agreement was found to be within ± 3% for the Standard SSD VMAT technique. TPS calculations demonstrated that mean lung doses in the first two techniques were around 8.5 Gy while it was kept around 7 Gy in Standard SSD VMAT. It is concluded that Standard SSD VMAT is superior in sparing the lung tissue while all three TBI techniques are feasible in clinical practice with acceptable dose homogeneity. In the absence of VMAT-based treatment planning, Extended SSD FiF would be a reasonable choice compared to other conventional techniques.</description><subject>Biological and Medical Physics</subject><subject>Biophysics</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection</subject><subject>Environmental Physics</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Homogeneity</subject><subject>Irradiation</subject><subject>Lungs</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</subject><subject>Organs at Risk - radiation effects</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Physics and Astronomy</subject><subject>Planning</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiometry - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</subject><subject>Whole-Body Irradiation - methods</subject><issn>0301-634X</issn><issn>1432-2099</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9uFDEMxiMEosvCC3BAkbhwIJBk8mfDrSotIBWBtAVxizITb5tqNilJBm2fgxcm3SlUcOAUx_75s-UPoaeMvmKU6teFUsEYoZwTSo0xZHcPLZjoOOHtex8taEcZUZ34doAelXJJKdNKmYfooFNcmc6wBfr5eXQxhniOXfTYpxK2UHMYMPxw4-RqSBGnDa4XGQDXVN2I--SvccjZ-TDXKwwXMXyfoLzB69p0XPZ4vX6Lv348PHuJj3cVooe71H7UX9mTAKMnIZJ98Bg92LixwJPbd4m-nByfHb0np5_efTg6PCUDl6oS1a-E84PmXssBmNRcc9f3Qre0gJU0anC0d146qqUUigupnOSKeqENMN8t0YtZ9yqnm-2r3YYywNguAmkqtulpJahsp1qi5_-gl2nKsW3XKG24pkquGsVnasiplAwbe5XD1uVry6i9sczOltlmmd1bZnet6dmt9NRvwf9p-e1RA7oZKK0UzyHfzf6P7C-o06El</recordid><startdate>20230301</startdate><enddate>20230301</enddate><creator>Cananoglu, Mert</creator><creator>Hurmuz, Pervin</creator><creator>Yeginer, Mete</creator><creator>Ozyigit, Gokhan</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230301</creationdate><title>Planning and dosimetric evaluation of three total body irradiation techniques: Standard SSD VMAT, Extended SSD VMAT and Extended SSD Field-in-Field</title><author>Cananoglu, Mert ; Hurmuz, Pervin ; Yeginer, Mete ; Ozyigit, Gokhan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-6b84adc72d75ce157272abb4784a4e8596ca0bad5a0755462456a5260d479e1d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Biological and Medical Physics</topic><topic>Biophysics</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection</topic><topic>Environmental Physics</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Homogeneity</topic><topic>Irradiation</topic><topic>Lungs</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</topic><topic>Organs at Risk - radiation effects</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Physics and Astronomy</topic><topic>Planning</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiometry - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</topic><topic>Whole-Body Irradiation - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cananoglu, Mert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurmuz, Pervin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeginer, Mete</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozyigit, Gokhan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiation and environmental biophysics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cananoglu, Mert</au><au>Hurmuz, Pervin</au><au>Yeginer, Mete</au><au>Ozyigit, Gokhan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Planning and dosimetric evaluation of three total body irradiation techniques: Standard SSD VMAT, Extended SSD VMAT and Extended SSD Field-in-Field</atitle><jtitle>Radiation and environmental biophysics</jtitle><stitle>Radiat Environ Biophys</stitle><addtitle>Radiat Environ Biophys</addtitle><date>2023-03-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>73</spage><epage>81</epage><pages>73-81</pages><issn>0301-634X</issn><eissn>1432-2099</eissn><abstract>The aim of this study was to dosimetrically compare three total body irradiation (TBI) techniques which can be delivered by a standard linear accelerator, and to deduce which one is preferable. Specifically, Extended Source to Surface Distance (SSD) Field-in-Field (FiF), Extended SSD Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), and Standard SSD VMAT TBI techniques were dosimetrically evaluated. Percent depth dose and dose profile measurements were made under treatment conditions for each specified technique. After having generated treatment plans with a treatment planning system (TPS), dose homogeneity and critical organ doses were investigated on a Rando phantom using radiochromic films and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs). TBI dose of 12 Gy in six fractions was prescribed for each technique. The gamma index (5%/5 mm) was used for the analysis of radiochromic films. Passing rates for Extended SSD FiF, Extended SSD VMAT and Standard SSD VMAT techniques were found to be 90%, 87% and 94%, respectively. OSLD measurements were within ± 5% agreement with TPS calculations for the first two techniques whereas the agreement was found to be within ± 3% for the Standard SSD VMAT technique. TPS calculations demonstrated that mean lung doses in the first two techniques were around 8.5 Gy while it was kept around 7 Gy in Standard SSD VMAT. It is concluded that Standard SSD VMAT is superior in sparing the lung tissue while all three TBI techniques are feasible in clinical practice with acceptable dose homogeneity. In the absence of VMAT-based treatment planning, Extended SSD FiF would be a reasonable choice compared to other conventional techniques.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>36269391</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00411-022-00999-x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0301-634X |
| ispartof | Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2023-03, Vol.62 (1), p.73-81 |
| issn | 0301-634X 1432-2099 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2727640569 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Biological and Medical Physics Biophysics Dosimetry Ecosystems Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection Environmental Physics Evaluation Homogeneity Irradiation Lungs Mathematical analysis Monitoring/Environmental Analysis Organs at Risk - radiation effects Original Article Physics Physics and Astronomy Planning Radiation Radiometry - methods Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated Whole-Body Irradiation - methods |
| title | Planning and dosimetric evaluation of three total body irradiation techniques: Standard SSD VMAT, Extended SSD VMAT and Extended SSD Field-in-Field |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T01%3A33%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Planning%20and%20dosimetric%20evaluation%20of%20three%20total%20body%20irradiation%20techniques:%20Standard%20SSD%20VMAT,%20Extended%20SSD%20VMAT%20and%20Extended%20SSD%20Field-in-Field&rft.jtitle=Radiation%20and%20environmental%20biophysics&rft.au=Cananoglu,%20Mert&rft.date=2023-03-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=73&rft.epage=81&rft.pages=73-81&rft.issn=0301-634X&rft.eissn=1432-2099&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00411-022-00999-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2727640569%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2779270658&rft_id=info:pmid/36269391&rfr_iscdi=true |