Engineering topics

Harrison, Amy S.

Publications and source records attributed to Harrison, Amy S..

4 records

DOE OSTI2013

Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer

To quantify clinical differences for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in terms of dosimetric endpoints and planning and delivery time, twenty head and neck cancer patients have been considered for VMAT using Nucletron Oncentra MasterPlan delivered via an Elekta linear accelerator. Differences in planning time between IMRT and VMAT were estimated accounting for both optimization and calculation. The average delivery time per patient was obtained retrospectively using the record and verify software. For the dosimetric comparison, all contoured organs at risk (OARs) and planning target volumes (PTVs) were evaluated. Of the 20 cases considered, 14 had VMAT plans approved. Six VMAT plans were rejected due to unacceptable dose to OARs. In terms of optimization time, there was minimal difference between the two modalities. The dose calculation time was significantly longer for VMAT, 4 minutes per 358 degree arc versus 2 minutes for an entire IMRT plan. The overall delivery time was reduced by 9.2 ± 3.9 minutes for VMAT (51.4 ± 15.6%). For the dosimetric comparison of the 14 clinically acceptable plans, there was almost no statistical difference between the VMAT and IMRT. There was also a reduction in monitor units of approximately 32% from IMRT to VMAT with both modalities demonstrating comparable quality assurance results. VMAT provides comparable coverage of target volumes while sparing OARs for the majority of head and neck cases. In cases where high dose modulation was required for OARs, a clinically acceptable plan was only achievable with IMRT. Due to the long calculation times, VMAT plans can cause delays during planning but marked improvements in delivery time reduce patient treatment times and the risk of intra-fraction motion.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2013

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for adult craniospinal irradiation—A comparison with traditional techniques

Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) poses a challenging planning process because of the complex target volume. Traditional 3D conformal CSI does not spare any critical organs, resulting in toxicity in patients. Here the dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are compared with classic conformal planning in adults for both cranial and spine fields to develop a clinically feasible technique that is both effective and efficient. Ten adult patients treated with CSI were retrospectively identified. For the cranial fields, 5-field IMRT and dual 356° VMAT arcs were compared with opposed lateral 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) fields. For the spine fields, traditional posterior-anterior (PA) PA fields were compared with isocentric 5-field IMRT plans and single 200° VMAT arcs. Two adult patients have been treated using this IMRT technique to date and extensive quality assurance, especially for the junction regions, was performed. For the cranial fields, the IMRT technique had the highest planned target volume (PTV) maximum and was the least efficient, whereas the VMAT technique provided the greatest parotid sparing with better efficiency. 3D-CRT provided the most efficient delivery but with the highest parotid dose. For the spine fields, VMAT provided the best PTV coverage but had the highest mean dose to all organs at risk (OAR). 3D-CRT had the highest PTV and OAR maximum doses but was the most efficient. IMRT provides the greatest OAR sparing but the longest delivery time. For those patients with unresectable disease that can benefit from a higher, definitive dose, 3D-CRT–opposed laterals are the most clinically feasible technique for cranial fields and for spine fields. Although inefficient, the IMRT technique is the most clinically feasible because of the increased mean OAR dose with the VMAT technique. Quality assurance of the beams, especially the junction regions, is essential.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2012

Quality Assurance Peer Review Chart Rounds in 2011: A Survey of Academic Institutions in the United States

Purpose: In light of concerns regarding the quality of radiation treatment delivery, we surveyed the practice of quality assurance peer review chart rounds at American academic institutions. Methods and Materials: An anonymous web-based survey was sent to the chief resident of each institution across the United States. Results: The response rate was 80% (57/71). The median amount of time spent per patient was 2.7 minutes (range, 0.6-14.4). The mean attendance by senior physicians and residents was 73% and 93%, respectively. A physicist was consistently present at peer review rounds in 66% of departments. There was a close association between attendance by senior physicians and departmental organization: in departments with protected time policies, good attendance was 81% vs. 31% without protected time (p = 0.001), and in departments that documented attendance, attending presence was 69% vs. 29% in departments without documentation (p < 0.05). More than 80% of institutions peer review all external beam therapy courses; however, rates were much lower for other modalities (radiosurgery 58%, brachytherapy 40%-47%). Patient history, chart documentation, and dose prescription were always peer reviewed in >75% of institutions, whereas dosimetric details (beams, wedges), isodose coverage, intensity-modulated radiation therapy constraints, and dose-volume histograms were always peer reviewed in 63%, 59%, 42%, and 50% of cases, respectively. Chart rounds led to both minor (defined as a small multileaf collimator change/repeated port film) and major (change to dose prescription or replan with dosimetry) treatment changes. Whereas at the majority of institutions changes were rare (<10% of cases), 39% and 11% of institutions reported that minor and major changes, respectively, were made to more than 10% of cases. Conclusion: The implementation of peer review chart rounds seems inconsistent across American academic institutions. Brachytherapy and radiosurgical procedures are rarely reviewed. Attendance by senior physicians is variable, but it improves when scheduling clashes are avoided. The potential effect of a more thorough quality assurance peer review on patient outcomes is not known.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2012

Measuring pacemaker dose: A clinical perspective

Recently in our clinic, we have seen an increased number of patients presenting with pacemakers and defibrillators. Precautions are taken to develop a treatment plan that minimizes the dose to the pacemaker because of the adverse effects of radiation on the electronics. Here we analyze different dosimeters to determine which is the most accurate in measuring pacemaker or defibrillator dose while at the same time not requiring a significant investment in time to maintain an efficient workflow in the clinic. The dosimeters analyzed here were ion chambers, diodes, metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFETs), and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters. A simple phantom was used to quantify the angular and energy dependence of each dosimeter. Next, 8 patients plans were delivered to a Rando phantom with all the dosimeters located where the pacemaker would be, and the measurements were compared with the predicted dose. A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image was obtained to determine the dosimeter response in the kilovoltage energy range. In terms of the angular and energy dependence of the dosimeters, the ion chamber and diode were the most stable. For the clinical cases, all the dosimeters match relatively well with the predicted dose, although the ideal dosimeter to use is case dependent. The dosimeters, especially the MOSFETS, tend to be less accurate for the plans, with many lateral beams. Because of their efficiency, we recommend using a MOSFET or a diode to measure the dose. If a discrepancy is observed between the measured and expected dose (especially when the pacemaker to field edge is <10 cm), we recommend analyzing the treatment plan to see whether there are many lateral beams. Follow-up with another dosimeter rather than repeating multiple times with the same type of dosimeter. All dosimeters should be placed after the CBCT has been acquired.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗