Search

Purpose: The scope of this study was to determine a complete set of correction factors for several detectors in static small photon fields for two linear accelerators (linacs) and for several detectors. Methods: Measurements for Monte Carlo (MC) commissioning were performed for two linacs, Siemens Primus and Elekta Synergy. After having determined the source parameters that best fit the measurements of field specific output factors, profiles, and tissue-phantom ratio, the generalized version of the classical beam quality correction factor for static small fields, kQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr, were determined for several types of detectors by using the egs_chamber Monte Carlo user code which can accurately reproduce the geometry and the material composition of the detector. The influence of many parameters (energy and radial FWHM of the electron beam source, field dimensions, type of accelerator) on the value of kQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr was evaluated. Moreover, a MC analysis of the parameters that influence the change of kQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr as a function of field dimension was performed. A detailed analysis of uncertainties related to the measurements of the field specific output factor and to the Monte Carlo calculation of kQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr was done. Results: The simulations demonstrated that the correction factor kQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr can be considered independent from the quality beam factor Q in the range 0.68 ± 0.01 for all the detectors analyzed. The kQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr of PTW 60012 and EDGE diodes can be assumed dependent only on the field size, for fields down to 0.5 × 0.5 cm2. The microLion, and the microchambers, instead, must be used with some caution because they exhibit a slight dependence on the radial FWHM of the electron source, and therefore, a correction factor only dependent on field size can be used for fields ≥0.75 × 0.75 and ≥1.0 × 1.0 cm2, respectively. The analysis of uncertainties gave an estimate of uncertainty for the 0.5 × 0.5 cm2 field of about 0.7% (1σ) for kQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr factor and of about 1.0% (1σ) for the field output factor, ΩQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr, of diodes, microchambers, and microLion. Conclusions: Stereotactic diodes with the appropriate kQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr are recommended for determining ΩQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr of small photon beams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of anatomic total shoulder (TSA), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSA) is rapidly increasing in the United States. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty has numerous theoretical advantages, including preserved bone stock, decreased operating time, reduced rate of intraoperative humerus fracture, and flexibility of anatomic reconstruction. Only recently studies with more than 5 years of mean follow-up have become available., Methods: The MEDLINE database was systematically queried to identify all studies reporting outcomes regarding anatomic or reverse stemless shoulder arthroplasty. Studies were categorized according to mean reported follow-up. Outcome scores and range of motion measurements were compiled. Complication and revision rates due to failure of the humeral or glenoid components were summarized., Results: Nineteen TSA and HA studies with a total of 1115 patients were identified, with 4 studies and 162 patients with a mean follow-up between 60 and 120 months. Six RTSA studies with a total of 346 patients were identified, all with a mean follow-up between 18 and 60 months. There was a reliable improvement in outcomes compared with preoperative scores across studies. A cumulative 0.7% (8 of 1115) humeral component complication rate was found for TSA and HA components. There was a cumulative 1.7% (6 of 346) humeral complication rate for RTSA prostheses., Conclusions: In the studies reporting similar outcome measures, there were reliable improvements on par with stemmed counterparts. Aggregate complication rates appear similar to those published in the literature for stemmed components. Evidence supporting the utility and safety of stemless designs would be strengthened by longer-term follow-up and additional prospective comparative studies., (© 2019 The Author(s).)

Background: Current literature provides little information about the impact of environmental exposures on the severity of acquired blepharoptosis., Objective: The authors assessed environmental factors that may contribute to eyelid ptosis in a population of identical twins., Methods: Photographs of 286 sets of twins from a prospectively collected database from 2008 to 2010 were reviewed. The authors identified 96 sets of identical twins (192 individual persons) who had differing severity of ptosis. Digital photographs were analyzed, and the degree of ptosis was measured in each eye of every subject. The external factors that could potentially contribute to blepharoptosis were taken into consideration. The authors then assessed the correlations of 9 different environmental risk factors with ptosis. Generalized linear mixed model were constructed to determine the associations of ptosis measurements with environmental risk factors obtained from the subject survey database., Results: The mean level of upper eyelid ptosis in the study population was 1.1 mm. The mean difference in ptosis between twins was 0.5 mm. Wearing contact lenses, either hard or soft, was significantly associated with ptosis. The mean ptosis measurement among twins who did not wear contact lenses was 1.0 mm; for those who wore soft contact lenses, the mean was 1.41 mm, and for those who wore hard contact lenses, the mean was 1.84 mm., Conclusions: Acquired ptosis is not linked to body mass index, smoking behavior, sun exposure, alcohol use, work stress, or sleep. Wearing either hard or soft lenses was associated with an increased risk of ptosis. These influences are independent of genetic predisposition., Level of Evidence: 3 Diagnostic., (© 2015 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Evaluate the ability of different dosimeters to correctly measure the dosimetric parameters percentage depth dose (PDD), tissue-maximum ratio (TMR), and off-axis ratio (OAR) in water for small fields., Methods: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to estimate the variation of kQclin,Qmsr (fclin,fmsr) for several types of microdetectors as a function of depth and distance from the central axis for PDD, TMR, and OAR measurements. The variation of kQclin,Qmsr (fclin,fmsr) enables one to evaluate the ability of a detector to reproduce the PDD, TMR, and OAR in water and consequently determine whether it is necessary to apply correction factors. The correctness of the simulations was verified by assessing the ratios between the PDDs and OARs of 5- and 25-mm circular collimators used with a linear accelerator measured with two different types of dosimeters (the PTW 60012 diode and PTW PinPoint 31014 microchamber) and the PDDs and the OARs measured with the Exradin W1 plastic scintillator detector (PSD) and comparing those ratios with the corresponding ratios predicted by the MC simulations., Results: MC simulations reproduced results with acceptable accuracy compared to the experimental results; therefore, MC simulations can be used to successfully predict the behavior of different dosimeters in small fields. The Exradin W1 PSD was the only dosimeter that reproduced the PDDs, TMRs, and OARs in water with high accuracy. With the exception of the EDGE diode, the stereotactic diodes reproduced the PDDs and the TMRs in water with a systematic error of less than 2% at depths of up to 25 cm; however, they produced OAR values that were significantly different from those in water, especially in the tail region (lower than 20% in some cases). The microchambers could be used for PDD measurements for fields greater than those produced using a 10-mm collimator. However, with the detector stem parallel to the beam axis, the microchambers could be used for TMR measurements for all field sizes. The microchambers could not be used for OAR measurements for small fields., Conclusions: Compared with MC simulation, the Exradin W1 PSD can reproduce the PDDs, TMRs, and OARs in water with a high degree of accuracy; thus, the correction used for converting dose is very close to unity. The stereotactic diode is a viable alternative because it shows an acceptable systematic error in the measurement of PDDs and TMRs and a significant underestimation in only the tail region of the OAR measurements, where the dose is low and differences in dose may not be therapeutically meaningful.

Background: Radiotherapy is an increasingly preferred treatment option for localized prostate cancer, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) a relatively established modality of therapeutic irradiation. The present study analyzes the toxicity and biochemical efficacy of SBRT in 100 consecutive prostate cancer patients treated with CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System., Methods: One hundred patients were treated with SBRT at the Radiation Oncology department of San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy. All patients included in this IRB-approved protocol-driven prospective study had biopsy-proven prostate cancer. Risk category was low in 41, intermediate in 42, and high in 17 patients. The patients were treated with CyberKnife-SBRT (CK-SBRT), the prescription dose was 35 Gy in five fractions, corresponding to 92 Gy in 2-Gy fractions (α/β =1.5 Gy); 29 patients also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)., Results: Median follow-up was 36 months (range, 6-76 months). Acute Grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in respectively 12% and 18% of the patients; there were no Grade 3 or higher acute toxicities. Late Grade 1, 2, and 3 genitourinary toxicities occurred in 4%, 3%, and 1% of the patients, respectively; late Grade 1 gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in two patients and Grade 2 toxicity in one patient; no late gastrointestinal toxicities of grade 3 or 4 were observed. Median PSA nadir was 0.45 ng/ml at 36 months for all patients. In the SBRT-monotherapy group, the median PSA nadir at 36 months was 0.62 ng/ml; in the ADT-SBRT group, it was 0.18 ng/ml. Four patients had clinical recurrence: one local, two lymph nodes, and one to the bone. Ninety-six patients had no evidence of biochemical or clinical recurrence. A benign PSA bounce of median 1.08 ng/ml occurred in 12% of the 71 SBRT monotherapy patients at a mean 23 months (range, 18-30 months)., Conclusions: In this study CK-SBRT has provided promising outcomes in localized prostate cancer with good PSA response, minimal toxicity and patient inconvenience.

Purpose: The scope of this study was to determine a complete set of correction factors for several detectors in static small photon fields for two linear accelerators (linacs) and for several detectors., Methods: Measurements for Monte Carlo (MC) commissioning were performed for two linacs, Siemens Primus and Elekta Synergy. After having determined the source parameters that best fit the measurements of field specific output factors, profiles, and tissue-phantom ratio, the generalized version of the classical beam quality correction factor for static small fields, k(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ), were determined for several types of detectors by using the egs_chamber Monte Carlo user code which can accurately reproduce the geometry and the material composition of the detector. The influence of many parameters (energy and radial FWHM of the electron beam source, field dimensions, type of accelerator) on the value of k(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ) was evaluated. Moreover, a MC analysis of the parameters that influence the change of k(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ) as a function of field dimension was performed. A detailed analysis of uncertainties related to the measurements of the field specific output factor and to the Monte Carlo calculation of k(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ) was done., Results: The simulations demonstrated that the correction factor k(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ) can be considered independent from the quality beam factor Q in the range 0.68  ±  0.01 for all the detectors analyzed. The k(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ) of PTW 60012 and EDGE diodes can be assumed dependent only on the field size, for fields down to 0.5 × 0.5 cm². The microLion, and the microchambers, instead, must be used with some caution because they exhibit a slight dependence on the radial FWHM of the electron source, and therefore, a correction factor only dependent on field size can be used for fields ≥ 0.75 × 0.75 and ≥ 1.0 × 1.0 cm², respectively. The analysis of uncertainties gave an estimate of uncertainty for the 0.5 × 0.5 cm² field of about 0.7% (1σ) for k(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ) factor and of about 1.0% (1σ) for the field output factor, Ω(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ), of diodes, microchambers, and microLion., Conclusions: Stereotactic diodes with the appropriate k(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ) are recommended for determining Ω(Q(clin),Q(msr) ) (f(clin),f(msr) ) of small photon beams.