Search

Purpose: To evaluate customizing a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model using dosimetric analysis for volumetric modulated arc therapy for pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods: The first model (M1) using 56 plans and the second model (M2) using 31 plans were created in the first 7 months of the study. The ratios of volume of both kidneys overlapping the expanded planning target volume to the total volume of both kidneys (Voverlap/Vwhole) were calculated in all cases to customize M1. Regression lines were derived from Voverlap/Vwhole and mean dose to both kidneys. The third model (M3) was created using 30 plans which data put them below the regression line. For validation, KBP was performed with the three models on 21 patients. Results: V18 of the left kidney for M1 plans was 7.3% greater than for clinical plans. Dmean of the left kidney for M2 plans was 2.2% greater than for clinical plans. There was no significant difference between all kidney doses in M3 and clinical plans. Dmean of the left kidney for M2 plans was 2.2% greater than for clinical plans. Dmean to both kidneys did not differ significantly between the three models in validation plans with Voverlap/Vwhole lower than average. In plans with larger than average volumes, the Dmean of validation plans created by M3 was significantly lower for both kidneys by 1.7 and 0.9 Gy than with M1 and M2, respectively. Conclusions: Selecting plans to register in a model by analyzing dosimetry and geometry is an effective means of improving the KBP model.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the interfractional setup reproducibility of two types of patient immobilization devices for prostate cancer receiving image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Materials and Methods: The MOLDCARE (MC) involves hydraulic fixation, whereas the BlueBAG (BB) and Vac-Lock (VL) involve vacuum fixation. For 72 patients, each immobilization device was individually customized during computed tomography (CT) simulation. Before the treatment, bony registration was performed using orthogonal kV images and digitally reconstructed radiographs. The shift of the treatment couch was recorded as a benchmark in the first session. In subsequent sessions, the shifts from the benchmark were measured and analyzed. Soft-tissue registration was performed weekly by cone-beam CT and CT images, and the shifts were measured and analyzed. Results: In the superior-inferior and left-right directions, there were nearly no changes in the overall mean among the immobilization devices. In the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, the overall mean for the MC, BB, and VL were 0.34 ± 1.33, −0.47 ± 1.27, and −1.82 ± 1.65 mm, respectively. The mean shifts along the AP direction were approximately 1 mm more in patients immobilized on the BB and 2.5 mm more in those on the VL, compared to those on the MC, after the twentieth treatment. No significant changes were observed among the patients immobilized on those devices, respectively, in soft-tissue registration. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the settling of the vacuum fixation was caused by air leakage in the latter-half treatment, and the immobilization device type has no effect on the treatment-position reproducibility in IGRT.