International Journal of Radiation Research
نشریه پرتو پژوه
Int J Radiat Res
Basic Sciences
http://ijrr.com
79
journal79
2322-3243
2345-4229
10.61186/ijrr
en
jalali
1401
4
1
gregorian
2022
7
1
20
3
online
1
fulltext
en
Dosimetric comparison of large field widths in helical tomotherapy for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery
Radiation Biology
Radiation Biology
تحقيق بديع
Original Research
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="text-justify:newspaper"><span style="text-kashida-space:50%"><span style="line-height:119%"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Background</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The Helical Tomotherapy (HT) technique has been introduced for use in Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS). Previously, the smallest field width (FW) has been recommended for optimum results, which would require a long beam-on time (BoT). The uncertainty of the intrafraction could be maximized during the delivery by this BoT. This study then investigated the plan qualities and dosimetric parameters among different FWs and treatment modes. </span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Materials and Methods</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:th">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">Fifteen patients previously treated by the HT technique with fixed-FW 10 mm </span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">(</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">FW10f) were selected</span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">.</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The treatment planning systems of TomoTherapy</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">involved other plans that employed fixed-FW 25 mm </span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">(</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">FW25f</span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">)</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">and dynamic-FW 25 mm </span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">(</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">FW25d</span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">).</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The plan quality indexes and the dosimetric parameters of the large FWs (FW 25 mm) were compared according to the FW10f benchmark and then analyzed by relevant statistics</span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">.</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Results</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:th">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The plan quality indexes and the dosimetric parameters revealed no significant differences between FW10f and FW25d</span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">.</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">Accordingly, FW25f revealed a</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">significant difference in the FW10f values in some indexed parameters</span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">.</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The maximum dose on the right optic nerves and the value of the integral dose revealed a significant difference between FW10f and FW25f. The BoT of the FW10f presented the longest treatment time when compared with the other FWs</span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:th">.</span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Conclusion</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="th" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:th">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The outcomes of this investigation clearly ensure that the performance of FW25d is comparable with that of FW10f in terms of the plan qualities and the dosimetric parameters. Notably, the short BoT of this FW might benefit the minimization that is associated with intrafraction uncertainty.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
Dynamic jaws, field width, stereotactic radiosurgery, helical tomotherapy.
701
707
http://ijrr.com/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-966&slc_lang=en&sid=1
A.
Watcharawipha
7900319475328460022221
7900319475328460022221
No
Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
I.
Chitapanarux
imjai@hotmail.com
7900319475328460022222
7900319475328460022222
Yes
Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
B.
Jia-Mahasap
7900319475328460022223
7900319475328460022223
No
Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand