Search

Abstract: In external beam radiotherapy the calculation of dose distribution for patients with hip prostheses is critical. Metallic implants not only degrade the image quality but also perturb the dose distribution. Conventional treatment planning systems do not accurately account for high-Z prosthetic implants heterogeneities, especially at interfaces. The materials studied in this work have been chosen on the basis of a statistical investigation on the hip prostheses implanted in 70 medical centres. The first aim of this study is a systematic characterization of materials used for hip prostheses, and it has been provided by BEAMnrc Monte Carlo code. The second aim is to evaluate the capabilities of a specific treatment planning system, Pinnacle3, when dealing with dose calculations in presence of metals, also close to the regions of high-Z gradients. In both cases it has been carried out an accurate comparison versus experimental measurements for two clinical photon beam energies (6MV and 18MV) and for two experimental sets-up: metallic cylinders inserted in a water phantom and in a specifically built PMMA slab. Our results show an agreement within 2% between experiments and MC simulations. TPS calculations agree with experiments within 3%. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of the use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in radiotherapy target delineation for head-and-neck cancer compared with CT alone. Methods and Materials: A total of 38 consecutive patients with head-and-neck cancer were included in this study. The primary tumor sites were as follow: 20 oropharyngeal tumors, 4 laryngeal tumors, 2 hypopharyngeal tumors, 2 paranasal sinuses tumors, 9 nasopharyngeal tumors, and 1 parotid gland tumor. The FDG-PET and CT scans were performed with a dedicated PET/CT scanner in one session and then fused. Subsequently, patients underwent treatment planning CT with intravenous contrast enhancement. The radiation oncologist defined all gross tumor volumes (GTVs) using both the PET/CT and CT scans. Results: In 35 (92%) of 38 cases, the CT-based GTVs were larger than the PET/CT-based GTVs. The average total GTV from the CT and PET/CT scans was 34.54 cm3 (range, 3.56–109) and 29.38 cm3 (range, 2.87–95.02), respectively (p < 0.05). Separate analyses of the difference between the CT- and PET/CT-based GTVs of the primary tumor compared with the GTVs of nodal disease were not statistically significant. The comparison between the PET/CT-based and CT-based boost planning target volumes did not show a statistically significant difference. All patients were alive at the end of the follow-up period (range, 3–38 months). Conclusion: GTVs, but not planning target volumes, were significantly changed by the implementation of combined PET/CT. Large multicenter studies are needed to ascertain whether combined PET/CT in target delineation can influence the main clinical outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]