Comparison of multiple static segment and sliding window techniques in prostate radiotherapy

G. Inan, Vefa Gül, G. Yavas, Ç. Yavaş, R. Ogul
{"title":"Comparison of multiple static segment and sliding window techniques in prostate radiotherapy","authors":"G. Inan, Vefa Gül, G. Yavas, Ç. Yavaş, R. Ogul","doi":"10.1063/1.5135455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to compare multiple static segment (step and shoot) and sliding window techniques in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Ten definitive prostate patients were included in this study. For each patients, two different treatment plans were created. Multiple static segment and sliding window techniques were compared doses in the planning tardet volume (PTV), the organ at risk (OAR) volumes including rectum dose (V50, V35, V25, V20 and V10), bladder dose (V50, V35, V25 and V15), femoral heads mean and maksimum doses, homogeneity index (DHI) and the monitor unit counts (MU) for the treatment. Gamma analysis was performed by using portal dosimetry software in 2 and 3 distance to agreement and 2% and 3% dose difference criteria and their algorithms were compared. Coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) was showed similar results for both sliding window and step and shoot IMRT, however significant differences were found critical organ doses and total monitor unit (MU). Rectum and bladder mean doses for the sliding window and step and shoot plans were 43.37±10.89, 40.03±12.61 and 42.62±10.22, 39.20±12 and the mean MUs were 1014 cGy and 867 cGy respectively. Homogeneity index (HI) was 0.038±0.01 and 0.079±0.001 for SW and MSS techniques. When compared the calculated and measured dose distributions images of the gamma analyses the average result 2/2% and 3/3% were 97.46±1.34, 99.63±0.82 and 98.16± 0.27, 99.33±0.17 for both the sliding window and step and shoot techniques respectively. Two techniques allowed more homogeneous dose distributions in PTV. Considering the dose to organs at risk (OAR) and total MU, MSS technique seems to be advantages than the sliding window. SW and MMS techniques showed comparable results with the respect to gamma analysis.The purpose of this study is to compare multiple static segment (step and shoot) and sliding window techniques in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Ten definitive prostate patients were included in this study. For each patients, two different treatment plans were created. Multiple static segment and sliding window techniques were compared doses in the planning tardet volume (PTV), the organ at risk (OAR) volumes including rectum dose (V50, V35, V25, V20 and V10), bladder dose (V50, V35, V25 and V15), femoral heads mean and maksimum doses, homogeneity index (DHI) and the monitor unit counts (MU) for the treatment. Gamma analysis was performed by using portal dosimetry software in 2 and 3 distance to agreement and 2% and 3% dose difference criteria and their algorithms were compared. Coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) was showed similar results for both sliding window and step and shoot IMRT, however significant differences were found critical organ doses and total monitor unit (MU). Rectum...","PeriodicalId":233679,"journal":{"name":"TURKISH PHYSICAL SOCIETY 35TH INTERNATIONAL PHYSICS CONGRESS (TPS35)","volume":"2012 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TURKISH PHYSICAL SOCIETY 35TH INTERNATIONAL PHYSICS CONGRESS (TPS35)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5135455","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare multiple static segment (step and shoot) and sliding window techniques in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Ten definitive prostate patients were included in this study. For each patients, two different treatment plans were created. Multiple static segment and sliding window techniques were compared doses in the planning tardet volume (PTV), the organ at risk (OAR) volumes including rectum dose (V50, V35, V25, V20 and V10), bladder dose (V50, V35, V25 and V15), femoral heads mean and maksimum doses, homogeneity index (DHI) and the monitor unit counts (MU) for the treatment. Gamma analysis was performed by using portal dosimetry software in 2 and 3 distance to agreement and 2% and 3% dose difference criteria and their algorithms were compared. Coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) was showed similar results for both sliding window and step and shoot IMRT, however significant differences were found critical organ doses and total monitor unit (MU). Rectum and bladder mean doses for the sliding window and step and shoot plans were 43.37±10.89, 40.03±12.61 and 42.62±10.22, 39.20±12 and the mean MUs were 1014 cGy and 867 cGy respectively. Homogeneity index (HI) was 0.038±0.01 and 0.079±0.001 for SW and MSS techniques. When compared the calculated and measured dose distributions images of the gamma analyses the average result 2/2% and 3/3% were 97.46±1.34, 99.63±0.82 and 98.16± 0.27, 99.33±0.17 for both the sliding window and step and shoot techniques respectively. Two techniques allowed more homogeneous dose distributions in PTV. Considering the dose to organs at risk (OAR) and total MU, MSS technique seems to be advantages than the sliding window. SW and MMS techniques showed comparable results with the respect to gamma analysis.The purpose of this study is to compare multiple static segment (step and shoot) and sliding window techniques in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Ten definitive prostate patients were included in this study. For each patients, two different treatment plans were created. Multiple static segment and sliding window techniques were compared doses in the planning tardet volume (PTV), the organ at risk (OAR) volumes including rectum dose (V50, V35, V25, V20 and V10), bladder dose (V50, V35, V25 and V15), femoral heads mean and maksimum doses, homogeneity index (DHI) and the monitor unit counts (MU) for the treatment. Gamma analysis was performed by using portal dosimetry software in 2 and 3 distance to agreement and 2% and 3% dose difference criteria and their algorithms were compared. Coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) was showed similar results for both sliding window and step and shoot IMRT, however significant differences were found critical organ doses and total monitor unit (MU). Rectum...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多静态段与滑动窗技术在前列腺放射治疗中的比较
本研究的目的是比较多静态段(步进和射击)和滑动窗口技术在调强放疗(IMRT)中的应用。本研究纳入了10例确诊前列腺患者。针对每位患者,制定了两种不同的治疗方案。采用多种静态段和滑动窗技术比较治疗计划靶体积(PTV)、危险器官体积(OAR)包括直肠剂量(V50、V35、V25、V20和V10)、膀胱剂量(V50、V35、V25和V15)、股骨平均和最大剂量、均匀性指数(DHI)和监测单位计数(MU)。采用门脉剂量测定软件在2和3距离上进行伽玛分析,以符合2%和3%剂量差标准并比较其算法。滑动窗口和步进注射IMRT的计划靶体积(PTV)覆盖结果相似,但发现关键器官剂量和总监测单位(MU)存在显著差异。滑动窗、阶梯和射击方案直肠和膀胱的平均剂量分别为43.37±10.89、40.03±12.61和42.62±10.22、39.20±12,平均MUs分别为1014 cGy和867 cGy。均一性指数(HI)分别为0.038±0.01和0.079±0.001。对比伽玛分析计算和测量的剂量分布图像,滑动窗法和步进射法的平均结果2/2%和3/3%分别为97.46±1.34、99.63±0.82和98.16±0.27、99.33±0.17。两种技术使PTV的剂量分布更加均匀。考虑到危及器官的剂量(OAR)和总MU, MSS技术似乎比滑动窗口技术更有优势。SW和MMS技术在伽马分析方面显示出可比较的结果。本研究的目的是比较多静态段(步进和射击)和滑动窗口技术在调强放疗(IMRT)中的应用。本研究纳入了10例确诊前列腺患者。针对每位患者,制定了两种不同的治疗方案。采用多种静态段和滑动窗技术比较治疗计划靶体积(PTV)、危险器官体积(OAR)包括直肠剂量(V50、V35、V25、V20和V10)、膀胱剂量(V50、V35、V25和V15)、股骨平均和最大剂量、均匀性指数(DHI)和监测单位计数(MU)。采用门脉剂量测定软件在2和3距离上进行伽玛分析,以符合2%和3%剂量差标准并比较其算法。滑动窗口和步进注射IMRT的计划靶体积(PTV)覆盖结果相似,但发现关键器官剂量和总监测单位(MU)存在显著差异。直肠……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Metamaterial inspired sensor for detection of engine lubricant oil condition Titanium - carbon multilayer nanostructures obtained by thermionic vacuum arc method Total ionizing dose analysis of a native detector and a satellite on orbit Comparison of multiple static segment and sliding window techniques in prostate radiotherapy Dual scalar Aharonov Bohm phase
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1