Impact of very long time output variation in the treatment of total marrow irradiation with helical tomotherapy

Radiation Oncology

Susanta K Hui¹  Yutaka Takahashi² 

[1] Department of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Minnesota, 424 Harvard Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA;Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, 424 Harvard Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

关键词: Very long time output variation;    Total body irradiation;    Total marrow irradiation;    Tomotherapy;    Radiation therapy;   

Others  :  1153929
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-8-123

 received in 2013-02-07, accepted in 2013-05-10,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Beam-on time in Total Marrow Irradiation (TMI) delivery with helical tomotherapy is more than 30 minutes. The purpose of this study was to investigate extended time output variation in tomotherapy machine without dose servo system and its impact on the dosimetry of TMI planning.

Materials and methods

The calibration procedures with 1800 seconds delivery were conducted. The slab and cylindrical phantoms were used for static and rotational output variation measurements, respectively. All measurements were performed in 0.1 second interval with an Exradin A1SL ionization chamber (Standard Imaging Inc., Madison, WI, USA) connected to the tomoelectrometer supplied by the manufacture. Simulated TMI treatment planning with a slab phantom was delivered and verified with ion chamber and EDR-2 films.

Results

The static output variations during 30 min averaged −2.9% ± 0.2%, -3.4% ± 0.3%, and −3.4% ± 0.3% at 10 min, 20 min, and 30 min, respectively. The rotational output variations from start averaged −2.5% ± 0.7%, -3.1% ± 0.7%, and −3.5% ± 0.8% at 10 min, 20 min, and 30 min, respectively. The maximum output variation was up to 4.5%. In a TMI planning model, in which beam-on time was over 30 min, planned dose and dose measured with ion chambers in both cranial and caudal sides agreed within 3%. Film measurements in cranial and caudal sides also showed the pass rates of 97.7% and 92.2% with the criteria of 3 mm/3% in gamma analysis.

Conclusion

These results suggest that long TMI delivery by helical tomotherapy, even without dose servo system, does not pose a risk for significant deviations from the original treatment plan regardless of the output variation. However, very long time output variation should be checked before the first treatment.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Takahashi and Hui; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mackie TR, Holmes T, Swerdloff S, Reckwerdt P, Deasy JO, Yang J, Paliwal B, Kinsella T: Tomotherapy: a new concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy. Med Phys 1993, 20(6):1709-19.
• [2]Mackie TR: History of tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:427-453.
• [3]Hui SK, Kapatoes J, Fowler J, Henderson D, Olivera G, Manon RR, Gerbi B, Mackie TR, Welsh JS: Feasibility study of helical tomotherapy for total body or total marrow irradiation. Med Phys 2005, 32:3214-3224.
• [4]Hui SK, Verneris MR, Froelich J, Dusenbery K, Welsh SJ: Multimodality image guided total marrow irradiation and verification of the dose delivered to the lung, PTV, and Thoracic Bone in a Patient: a case study. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2009, 8(1):23-28.
• [5]Wong JY, Rosenthal J, Liu A, Schultheiss T, Forman S, Somlo G: Image-guided total-marrow irradiation using helical tomotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma and acute leukemia undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73(1):273-279.
• [6]Schultheiss TE, Wong J, Liu A, Olivera G, Somlo G: Image-guided total marrow and total lymphatic irradiation using helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67(4):1259-1267.
• [7]Wong JY, Liu A, Schultheiss T, Popplewell L, Stein A, Rosenthal J, Essensten M, Forman S, Somlo G: Targeted total marrow irradiation using three-dimensional image-guided tomographic intensity-modulated radiation therapy: an alternative to standard total body irradiation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2006, 12(3):306-315.
• [8]Duchateau M, Tournel K, Verellen D, Van de Vondel I, Reynders T, Linthout N, Storme G: The effect of tomotherapy imaging beam output instabilities on dose calculation. Phys Med Boil 2010, 55(11):N329-N336.
• [9]Francois P, Mazal A: Static and rotational output variation of a tomotherapy unit. Med Phys 2009, 36(3):816-820.
• [10]Flynn RT, Kissick MW, Mehta MP, Olivera GH, Jeraj R, Mackie TR: The impact of linac output variations on dose distributions in helical tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2008, 53:417-430.
• [11]Staton RJ, Langen KM, Kupelian PA, Meeks SL: Dosimetric effects of rotational output variation and x-ray target degradation on helical tomotherapy plans. Med Phys 2009, 36(7):2881-2888.
• [12]Langen KM, Papanikolaou N, Balog J, Crilly R, Followill D, Goddu SM, Grant W III, Olivera G, Ramsey CR, Shi C: QA for helical tomotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 148. Med Phys 2010, 37(9):4817-4853.
• [13]Fenwick JD, Tome WA, Jaradat HA, Hui SK, James JA, Balog JP, DeSouza CN, Lucas CB, Olivera GH, Mackie TR, Paliwal BR: Quality assurance of a helical tomotherapy machine. Phys Med Biol 2004, 49:2933-2953.