<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"><channel rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/?rss=yes"><title>Medical Dosimetry</title><description>Medical Dosimetry RSS feed: Current Issue.    
 Medical Dosimetry , the official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, is the key source of information 
on new developments for the medical dosimetrist. Practical and comprehensive in coverage, the journal features original contributions 
and review articles by medical dosimetrists, oncologists, physicists, and radiation therapy technologists on clinical applications and 
techniques of external beam, interstitial, intracavitary and intraluminal irradiation in cancer management. Articles dealing primarily 
with physics will be reviewed by a specially appointed team of experts in the field. 
 Visit the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists 
Website at:  http://www.medicaldosimetry.org !   </description><link>http://www.meddos.org/?rss=yes</link><dc:publisher>Elsevier Inc.</dc:publisher><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:rights> © 2011 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. </dc:rights><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:issn>0958-3947</prism:issn><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:publicationDate>Winter 2011</prism:publicationDate><prism:copyright> © 2011 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. </prism:copyright><prism:rightsAgent>healthpermissions@elsevier.com</prism:rightsAgent><items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394711001658/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001172/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001275/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001287/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001305/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001329/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001330/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001342/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001354/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001366/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001378/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001901/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001913/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001925/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001937/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001949/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001950/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001962/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001974/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001986/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001998/abstract?rss=yes"/></rdf:Seq></items></channel><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394711001658/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Table of Contents</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394711001658/abstract?rss=yes</link><description></description><dc:title>Table of Contents</dc:title><dc:creator></dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/S0958-3947(11)00165-8</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date></dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate></prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>iii</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>iii</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001172/abstract?rss=yes"><title>The Effect of Registration Surrogate and Patient Factors on the Interobserver Variability of Electronic Portal Image Guidance During Prostate Radiotherapy</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001172/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Intraprostatic fiducial markers (IPM) and electronic portal imaging (EPI) are commonly used to identify and correct for prostate motion during radiotherapy. However, little data is available on the precision of this image-guidance technique. This study quantified impact of different registration surrogates and patient factors on the interobserver variability of manual EPI alignment during prostate radiotherapy. For 50 prostate radiotherapy patients previously implanted with 3 IPM, five observers manually aligned 150 pairs of orthogonal EPI to the reference digital reconstructed radiograph using Varian Vision EPI analysis software. Images were aligned using: Bony anatomy (BA), single mid-prostate IPM (SM); and 2 strategies using 3 IPM: center of mass (COM) and rotate &amp; translate (R&amp;T). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to quantify interobserver variability. The absolute displacements measured using SM and R&amp;T were compared with those using COM. The impact of patients' pelvic diameter and adjuvant hormone therapy on interobserver variability were also evaluated. Twelve thousand displacement values were collected for analysis. The maximum discrepancy between the 5 observers was &gt;2 mm in 47% of measurements using BA, 5% using SM, 4% using R&amp;T, and 3% using COM. Both of the 3 IPM alignment strategies demonstrated lower interobserver variability than the single IPM strategy (ICC 0.94–0.97 vs. 0.82–0.94). BA had the highest interobserver variability (ICC = 0.43–0.90). Pelvic diameter and hormone therapy had no discernible impact on interobserver variability. Compared with COM, the absolute displacements measured using the other IPM strategies were statistically different (p &lt; 0.001), but 95% of the absolute magnitude of differences between the strategies were ≤1 mm. The high reproducibility among the observers demonstrated the precision of prostate localization using multiple IPM and EPI, which was not influenced by the patient factors studied. Bony anatomy displayed the highest interobserver variability of the 4 alignment, likely because of the limited EPI field-of-view. Alignment using more than one IPM is recommended to minimize interobserver variability.</description><dc:title>The Effect of Registration Surrogate and Patient Factors on the Interobserver Variability of Electronic Portal Image Guidance During Prostate Radiotherapy</dc:title><dc:creator>Vickie Kong, Gina Lockwood, Jing Yan, Charles Catton, Peter Chung, Andrew Bayley, Tara Rosewall</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.005</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-09-17</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-09-17</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>337</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>343</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001275/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Novel Use of the Contura for High Dose Rate Cranial Brachytherapy</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001275/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: A popular choice for treatment of recurrent gliomas was cranial brachytherapy using the GliaSite Radiation Therapy System. However, this device was taken off the market in late 2008, thus leaving a treatment void. This case study presents our experience treating a cranial lesion for the first time using a Contura multilumen, high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy balloon applicator. The patient was a 47-year-old male who was diagnosed with a recurrent right frontal anaplastic oligodendroglioma. Previous radiosurgery made him a good candidate for brachytherapy. An intracavitary HDR balloon brachytherapy device (Contura) was placed in the resection cavity and treated with a single fraction of 20 Gy. The implant, treatment, and removal of the device were all completed without incident. Dosimetry of the device was excellent because the dose conformed very well to the target. V90, V100, V150, and V200 were 98.9%, 95.7%, 27.2, and 8.8 cc, respectively. This patient was treated successfully using the Contura multilumen balloon. Contura was originally designed for deployment in a postlumpectomy breast for treatment by accelerated partial breast irradiation. Being an intracavitary balloon device, its similarity to the GliaSite system makes it a viable replacement candidate. Multiple lumens in the device also make it possible to shape the dose delivered to the target, something not possible before with the GliaSite applicator.</description><dc:title>Novel Use of the Contura for High Dose Rate Cranial Brachytherapy</dc:title><dc:creator>Daniel J. Scanderbeg, John F. Alksne, Joshua D. Lawson, Kevin T. Murphy</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.08.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-12-09</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-12-09</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>344</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>346</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001287/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Dose Calculation Accuracy of the Monte Carlo Algorithm for CyberKnife Compared with Other Commercially Available Dose Calculation Algorithms</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001287/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms have the potential for greater accuracy than traditional model-based algorithms. This enhanced accuracy is particularly evident in regions of lateral scatter disequilibrium, which can develop during treatments incorporating small field sizes and low-density tissue. A heterogeneous slab phantom was used to evaluate the accuracy of several commercially available dose calculation algorithms, including Monte Carlo dose calculation for CyberKnife, Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm and Pencil Beam convolution for the Eclipse planning system, and convolution-superposition for the Xio planning system. The phantom accommodated slabs of varying density; comparisons between planned and measured dose distributions were accomplished with radiochromic film. The Monte Carlo algorithm provided the most accurate comparison between planned and measured dose distributions. In each phantom irradiation, the Monte Carlo predictions resulted in gamma analysis comparisons &gt;97%, using acceptance criteria of 3% dose and 3-mm distance to agreement. In general, the gamma analysis comparisons for the other algorithms were &lt;95%. The Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for CyberKnife provides more accurate dose distribution calculations in regions of lateral electron disequilibrium than commercially available model-based algorithms. This is primarily because of the ability of Monte Carlo algorithms to implicitly account for tissue heterogeneities, density scaling functions; and/or effective depth correction factors are not required.</description><dc:title>Dose Calculation Accuracy of the Monte Carlo Algorithm for CyberKnife Compared with Other Commercially Available Dose Calculation Algorithms</dc:title><dc:creator>Subhash Sharma, Joseph Ott, Jamone Williams, Danny Dickow</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-12-09</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-12-09</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>347</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>350</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001305/abstract?rss=yes"><title>A Comparison of Helical Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, and 3D-Conformal Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001305/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: We assessed dosimetric differences in pancreatic cancer radiotherapy via helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (HIMRT), linac-based IMRT, and 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) with regard to successful plan acceptance and dose to critical organs. Dosimetric analysis was performed in 16 pancreatic cases that were planned to 54 Gy; both post-pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 8) and unresected (n = 8) cases were compared. Without volume modification, plans met constraints 75% of the time with HIMRT and IMRT and 13% with 3D-CRT. There was no statistically significantly improvement with HIMRT over conventional IMRT in reducing liver V35, stomach V45, or bowel V45. HIMRT offers improved planning target volume (PTV) dose homogeneity compared with IMRT, averaging a lower maximum dose and higher volume receiving the prescription dose (D100). HIMRT showed an increased mean dose over IMRT to bowel and liver. Both HIMRT and IMRT offer a statistically significant improvement over 3D-CRT in lowering dose to liver, stomach, and bowel. The results were similar for both unresected and resected patients. In pancreatic cancer, HIMRT offers improved dose homogeneity over conventional IMRT and several significant benefits to 3D-CRT. Factors to consider before incorporating IMRT into pancreatic cancer therapy are respiratory motion, dose inhomogeneity, and mean dose.</description><dc:title>A Comparison of Helical Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, and 3D-Conformal Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer</dc:title><dc:creator>Matthew M. Poppe, Venkat Narra, Ning J. Yue, Jinghao Zhou, Carl Nelson, Salma K. Jabbour</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.08.003</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-12-09</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-12-09</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>351</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>357</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001329/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Beam Profile Disturbances from Implantable Pacemakers or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Interactions</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001329/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: The medical community is advocating for progressive improvement in the design of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and implantable pacemakers to accommodate elevations in dose limitation criteria. With advancement already made for magnetic resonance imaging compatibility in some, a greater need is present to inform the radiation oncologist and medical physicist regarding treatment planning beam profile changes when such devices are in the field of a therapeutic radiation beam. Treatment plan modeling was conducted to simulate effects induced by Medtronic, Inc.–manufactured devices on therapeutic radiation beams. As a continuation of grant-supported research, we show that radial and transverse open beam profiles of a medical accelerator were altered when compared with profiles resulting when implantable pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators are placed directly in the beam. Results are markedly different between the 2 devices in the axial plane and the sagittal planes. Vast differences are also presented for the therapeutic beams at 6-MV and 18-MV x-ray energies. Maximum changes in percentage depth dose are observed for the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator as 9.3% at 6 MV and 10.1% at 18 MV, with worst distance to agreement of isodose lines at 2.3 cm and 1.3 cm, respectively. For the implantable pacemaker, the maximum changes in percentage depth dose were observed as 10.7% at 6 MV and 6.9% at 18 MV, with worst distance to agreement of isodose lines at 2.5 cm and 1.9 cm, respectively. No differences were discernible for the defibrillation leads and the pacing lead.</description><dc:title>Beam Profile Disturbances from Implantable Pacemakers or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Interactions</dc:title><dc:creator>Michael S. Gossman, Bipinpreet Nagra, Alison Graves-Calhoun, Jeffrey Wilkinson</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.003</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-07</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-07</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>358</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>364</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001330/abstract?rss=yes"><title>VMAT vs. 7-Field-IMRT: Assessing the Dosimetric Parameters of Prostate Cancer Treatment with a 292-Patient Sample</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001330/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: We compared normal tissue radiation dose for the treatment of prostate cancer using 2 different radiation therapy delivery methods: volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Radiotherapy plans for 292 prostate cancer patients treated with VMAT to a total dose of 7740 cGy were analyzed retrospectively. Fixed-angle, 7-field IMRT plans were created using the same computed tomography datasets and contours. Radiation doses to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (bladder, rectum, penile bulb, and femoral heads) were measured, means were calculated for both treatment methods, and dose-volume comparisons were made with 2-tailed, paired t-tests. The mean dose to the bladder was lower with VMAT at all measured volumes: 5, 10, 15, 25, 35, and 50% (p &lt; 0.05). The mean doses to 5 and 10% of the rectum, the high-dose regions, were lower with VMAT (p &lt; 0.05). The mean dose to 15% of the rectal volume was not significantly different (p = 0.95). VMAT exposed larger rectal volumes (25, 35, and 50%) to more radiation than fixed-field IMRT (p &lt; 0.05). Average mean dose to the penile bulb (p &lt; 0.05) and mean dose to 10% of the femoral heads (p &lt; 0.05) were lower with VMAT. VMAT therapy for prostate cancer has dosimetric advantages for critical structures, notably for high-dose regions compared with fixed-field IMRT, without compromising PTV coverage. This may translate into reduced acute and chronic toxicity.</description><dc:title>VMAT vs. 7-Field-IMRT: Assessing the Dosimetric Parameters of Prostate Cancer Treatment with a 292-Patient Sample</dc:title><dc:creator>Robert W. Kopp, Michael Duff, Frank Catalfamo, Dhiren Shah, Michael Rajecki, Kehkashan Ahmad</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.004</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-07</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-07</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>365</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>372</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001342/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Conventional Craniospinal Irradiation with Patient Supine and Source-Skin Distance (SSD) 100 cm for Spinal Field</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001342/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: We describe a method of craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in the supine position and at a source-skin distance (SSD) of 100 cm for the spinal fields. The procedure is carried out with a 100-cm isocenter linear accelerator and conventional simulator, and the treatment is delivered with 2 opposed lateral cranial fields at source-axis distance (SAD) of 100 cm and 1 or 2 direct posterior spinal fields at SSD, 100 cm. The half beam–blocked cranial fields with a collimator rotation is used to match the superior border of the spinal field at the level of C2 vertebral body. The length of the spinal field is fixed, and is the same if 2 spinal fields are used. The position of the isocenter of the spine field is defined by longitudinally moving the couch a distance from the isocenter of the cranial fields and adjusting the SSD = 100 cm to the surface of the couch with the gantry rotated to the angle of 180° (posteroanterior position), and the distance can be calculated easily according to a few parameters. It only needs a simple calculation without couch rotation, extended SSD, or markers. The inferior and superior borders of the spinal field do not require visualization under fluoroscopy when it is beyond the visual field of the simulator. The entire simulation takes no more than 20 minutes. Supine craniospinal treatment using this technique may substitute the traditional prone position as a potentially beneficial alternative to CSI.</description><dc:title>Conventional Craniospinal Irradiation with Patient Supine and Source-Skin Distance (SSD) 100 cm for Spinal Field</dc:title><dc:creator>Xijun Liu, Jinming Yu, Yonghua Yu, Yong Yin, Bing Wang, Yong Zhang, Lei Kong, Dali Han, Zhijun Huo, Lei Fu</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.005</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-12-29</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-12-29</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>373</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>376</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001354/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Evaluation of Rectal Dose During High-Dose-Rate Intracavitary Brachytherapy for Cervical Carcinoma</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001354/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: High-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-ICBT) for carcinoma of the uterine cervix often results in high doses being delivered to surrounding organs at risk (OARs) such as the rectum and bladder. Therefore, it is important to accurately determine and closely monitor the dose delivered to these OARs. In this study, we measured the dose delivered to the rectum by intracavitary applications and compared this measured dose to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements rectal reference point dose calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). To measure the dose, we inserted a miniature (0.1 cm3) ionization chamber into the rectum of 86 patients undergoing radiation therapy for cervical carcinoma. The response of the miniature chamber modified by 3 thin lead marker rings for identification purposes during imaging was also characterized. The difference between the TPS-calculated maximum dose and the measured dose was &lt;5% in 52 patients, 5–10% in 26 patients, and 10–14% in 8 patients. The TPS-calculated maximum dose was typically higher than the measured dose. Our study indicates that it is possible to measure the rectal dose for cervical carcinoma patients undergoing HDR-ICBT. We also conclude that the dose delivered to the rectum can be reasonably predicted by the TPS-calculated dose.</description><dc:title>Evaluation of Rectal Dose During High-Dose-Rate Intracavitary Brachytherapy for Cervical Carcinoma</dc:title><dc:creator>Rajib Lochan Sha, Palreddy Yadagiri Reddy, Ramakrishna Rao, Kanaparthy R. Muralidhar, Rajat J. Kudchadker</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.006</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-12-09</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-12-09</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>377</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>382</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001366/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Exploring the Feasibility of Dose Escalation Positron Emission Tomography–Positive Disease with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and the Effects on Normal Tissue Structures for Thoracic Malignancies</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001366/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: The pattern of failure is one of the major causes of mortality among thoracic patients. Studies have shown a correlation between local control and dose. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has resulted in conformal dose distributions while limiting dose to normal tissue. However, thoracic malignancies treated with IMRT to highly conformal doses up to 70 Gy still have been found to fail. Thus, the need for dose escalation through simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) may prove effective in minimizing reoccurrences. For our study, 28 thoracic IMRT plans were reoptimized via dose escalation to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and planning target volume (PTV) of 79.2 Gy and 68.4 Gy, respectively. Reoccurrences in surrounding regions of microscopic disease are rare therefore, dose-escalating regional nodes (outside GTV) were not included. Hence, the need to edit GTV margins was acceptable for our retrospective study. A median dose escalation of approximately 15 Gy (64.8–79.2 Gy) via IMRT using SIB was deemed achievable with minimal percent differences received by critical structures compared with the original treatment plan. The target's mean doses were significantly increased based on p-value analysis, while the normal tissue structures were not significantly changed.</description><dc:title>Exploring the Feasibility of Dose Escalation Positron Emission Tomography–Positive Disease with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and the Effects on Normal Tissue Structures for Thoracic Malignancies</dc:title><dc:creator>Lehendrick M. Turner, Joshua A. Howard, Pouya Dehghanpour, Renée D. Barrett, Neal Rebueno, Matthew Palmer, Sastry Vedam, Ann Klopp, Ritsuko Komaki, James W. Welsh</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.007</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-12-09</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-12-09</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>383</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>388</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001378/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Helical Tomotherapy Planning for Lung Cancer Based on Ventilation Magnetic Resonance Imaging</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001378/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: To investigate the feasibility of lung ventilation-based treatment planning, computed tomography and hyperpolarized (HP) helium-3 (He-3) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ventilation images of 6 subjects were coregistered for intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning in Tomotherapy. Highly-functional lungs (HFL) and less-functional lungs (LFL) were contoured based on their ventilation image intensities, and a cylindrical planning-target-volume was simulated at locations adjacent to both HFL and LFL. Annals of an anatomy-based plan (Plan 1) and a ventilation-based plan (Plan 2) were generated. The following dosimetric parameters were determined and compared between the 2 plans: percentage of total/HFL volume receiving ≥20 Gy, 15 Gy, 10 Gy, and 5 Gy (TLV20, HFLV20, TLV15, HFLV15, TLV10, HFLV10, TLV5, HFLV5), mean total/HFL dose (MTLD/HFLD), maximum doses to all organs at risk (OARs), and target dose conformality. Compared with Plan 1, Plan 2 reduced mean HFLD (mean reduction, 0.8 Gy), MTLD (mean reduction, 0.6 Gy), HFLV20 (mean reduction, 1.9%), TLV20 (mean reduction, 1.5%), TLV15 (mean reduction, 1.7%), and TLV10 (mean reduction, 2.1%). P-values of the above comparisons are less than 0.05 using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. For HFLV15, HFLV10, TLV5, and HTLV5, Plan 2 resulted in lower values than plan 1 but the differences are not significant (P-value range, 0.063–0.219). Plan 2 did not significantly change maximum doses to OARs (P-value range, 0.063–0.563) and target conformality (P = 1.000). HP He-3 MRI of patients with lung disease shows a highly heterogeneous ventilation capacity that can be utilized for functional treatment planning. Moderate but statistically significant improvements in sparing functional lungs were achieved using helical tomotherapy plans.</description><dc:title>Helical Tomotherapy Planning for Lung Cancer Based on Ventilation Magnetic Resonance Imaging</dc:title><dc:creator>Jing Cai, Robert McLawhorn, Tallisa A. Altes, Eduard de Lange, Paul W. Read, James M. Larner, Stanley H. Benedict, Ke Sheng</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.008</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-08</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-08</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>389</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>396</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001901/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Investigation of Pitch and Jaw Width to Decrease Delivery Time of Helical Tomotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001901/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Helical tomotherapy plans using a combination of pitch and jaw width settings were developed for 3 patients previously treated for head and neck cancer. Three jaw widths (5, 2.5, and 1 cm) and 4 pitches (0.86, 0.43, 0.287, and 0.215) were used with a (maximum) modulation factor setting of 4. Twelve plans were generated for each patient using an identical optimization procedure (e.g., number of iterations, objective weights, and penalties, etc.), based on recommendations from TomoTherapy (Madison, WI). The plans were compared using isodose plots, dose volume histograms, dose homogeneity indexes, conformity indexes, radiobiological models, and treatment times. Smaller pitches and jaw widths showed better target dose homogeneity and sparing of normal tissue, as expected. However, the treatment time increased inversely proportional to the jaw width, resulting in delivery times of 24 ± 1.9 min for the 1-cm jaw width. Although treatment plans produced with the 2.5-cm jaw were dosimetrically superior to plans produced with the 5-cm jaw, subsequent calculations of tumor control probabilities and normal tissue complication probabilities suggest that these differences may not be radiobiologically meaningful. Because treatment plans produced with the 5-cm jaw can be delivered in approximately half the time of plans produced with the 2.5-cm jaw (5.1 ± 0.6 min vs. 9.5 ± 1.1 min), use of the 5-cm jaw in routine treatment planning may be a viable approach to decreasing treatment delivery times from helical tomotherapy units.</description><dc:title>Investigation of Pitch and Jaw Width to Decrease Delivery Time of Helical Tomotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer</dc:title><dc:creator>Monica Moldovan, Jonas D. Fontenot, John P. Gibbons, Tae Kyu Lee, Isaac I. Rosen, Robert S. Fields, Kenneth R. Hogstrom</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.10.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-08</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-08</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>397</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>403</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001913/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs. IMRT for the Treatment of Distal Esophageal Cancer</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001913/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Several studies have demonstrated that volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has the ability to reduce monitor units and treatment time when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This study aims to demonstrate that VMAT is able to provide adequate organs at risk (OAR) sparing and planning target volume (PTV) coverage for adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus while reducing monitor units and treatment time. Fourteen patients having been treated previously for esophageal cancer were planned using both VMAT and IMRT techniques. Dosimetric quality was evaluated based on doses to several OARs, as well as coverage of the PTV. Treatment times were assessed by recording the number of monitor units required for dose delivery. Body V5 was also recorded to evaluate the increased volume of healthy tissue irradiated to low doses. Dosimetric differences in OAR sparing between VMAT and IMRT were comparable. PTV coverage was similar for the 2 techniques but it was found that IMRT was capable of delivering a slightly more homogenous dose distribution. Of the 14 patients, 12 were treated with a single arc and 2 were treated with a double arc. Single-arc plans reduced monitor units by 42% when compared with the IMRT plans. Double-arc plans reduced monitor units by 67% when compared with IMRT. The V5 for the body was found to be 18% greater for VMAT than for IMRT. VMAT has the capability to decrease treatment times over IMRT while still providing similar OAR sparing and PTV coverage. Although there will be a smaller risk of patient movement during VMAT treatments, this advantage comes at the cost of delivering small doses to a greater volume of the patient.</description><dc:title>Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs. IMRT for the Treatment of Distal Esophageal Cancer</dc:title><dc:creator>Liam Van Benthuysen, Lee Hales, Matthew B. Podgorsak</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.009</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-08</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-08</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>404</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>409</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001925/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Comparison of Computed Tomography Scout Based Reference Point Localization to Conventional Film and Axial Computed Tomography</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001925/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Identification of source positions after implantation is an important step in brachytherapy planning. Reconstruction is traditionally performed from films taken by conventional simulators, but these are gradually being replaced in the clinic by computed tomography (CT) simulators. The present study explored the use of a scout image–based reconstruction algorithm that replaces the use of traditional film, while exhibiting low sensitivity to metal-induced artifacts that can appear in 3D CT methods. In addition, the accuracy of an in-house graphical software implementation of scout-based reconstruction was compared with seed location reconstructions for 2 phantoms by conventional simulator and CT measurements. One phantom was constructed using a planar fixed grid of 1.5-mm diameter ball bearings (BBs) with 40-mm spacing. The second was a Fletcher-Suit applicator embedded in Styrofoam (Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI) with one 3.2-mm-diameter BB inserted into each of 6 surrounding holes. Conventional simulator, kilovoltage CT (kVCT), megavoltage CT, and scout-based methods were evaluated by their ability to calculate the distance between seeds (40 mm for the fixed grid, 30–120 mm in Fletcher-Suit). All methods were able to reconstruct the fixed grid distances with an average deviation of &lt;1%. The worst single deviations (approximately 6%) were exhibited in the 2 volumetric CT methods. In the Fletcher-Suit phantom, the intermodality agreement was within approximately 3%, with the conventional sim measuring marginally larger distances, with kVCT the smallest. All of the established reconstruction methods exhibited similar abilities to detect the distances between BBs. The 3D CT-based methods, with lower axial resolution, showed more variation, particularly with the smaller BBs. With a software implementation, scout-based reconstruction is an appealing approach because it simplifies data acquisition over film-based reconstruction without requiring any specialized equipment and does not carry risk of misreads caused by artifacts.</description><dc:title>Comparison of Computed Tomography Scout Based Reference Point Localization to Conventional Film and Axial Computed Tomography</dc:title><dc:creator>Lan Jiang, Alistair Templeton, Julius Turian, Michael Kirk, Thomas Zusag, James C.H. Chu</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.10.002</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-14</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-14</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>410</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>415</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001937/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Preliminary Results of Helical Tomotherapy in Patients with Complex-Shaped Meningiomas Close to the Optic Pathway</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001937/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Meningiomas are the most common benign intracranial tumor. Meningiomas close to the optic pathway represent a treatment challenge both for surgery and radiotherapy. The aim of this article is to describe early results of helical tomotherapy treatment in complex-shaped meningiomas close to the optic pathway. Twenty-eight patients were consecutively treated. All patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic head mask and planned with the aid of a magnetic resonance imaging–computed tomography fusion. All treatments included daily image guidance. Pretreatment symptoms and acute toxicity were recorded. Median age was 57.5 years, and 92.8% patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scale ≤1. The most common localizations were the sella turcica, followed by the cavernous sinus and the sphenoid. The most common symptoms were derived from cranial nerve deficits. Tomotherapy was administered as primary treatment in 35.7% of patients, as an adjuvant treatment in 32.4%, and as a rescue treatment after postsurgical progression in 32.1% patients. Most patients were either inoperable or Simpson IV. Total dose varied between 5000 and 5400 cGy; fractionation varied between 180 and 200 cGy. Median dose to the planning target volume was 51.7 Gy (range, 50.2–55.9 Gy). Median coverage index was 0.89 (range, 0.18–0.97). Median homogeneity index was 1.05 (range, 1–1.12). Acute transient toxicity was grade 1 and included headache in 35.7% patients, ocular pain/dryness in 28.5%, and radiation dermatitis in 25%. Thus far, with a maximal follow-up of 3 years, no late effects have been seen and all patients have a radiological stabilization of the disease. Helical tomotherapy offered a safe and effective therapeutic alternative for patients with inoperable or subtotally resected complex-shaped meningiomas close to the optic pathway. Acceptable coverage and homogeneity indexes were achieved with appropriate values for maximal doses delivered to the eyes, lenses, and chiasm, despite the proximity of the tumor to these structures.</description><dc:title>Preliminary Results of Helical Tomotherapy in Patients with Complex-Shaped Meningiomas Close to the Optic Pathway</dc:title><dc:creator>Luis Schiappacasse, Ricardo Cendales, Kita Sallabanda, Franco Schnitman, Jose Samblas</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.10.003</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-14</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-14</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>416</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>422</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001949/abstract?rss=yes"><title>A Comparison of Clinical and Dosimetric Outcomes in Patients Receiving Partial Breast Irradiation with Photon-Only versus Mixed Photon/Electron Treatment Plans</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001949/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Several series evaluating external-beam partial breast irradiation (PBI) have linked negative cosmetic outcomes to large normal tissue treatment volumes. We compared patients treated with PBI whose treatment plans included only photons to those whose plans incorporated electrons. Twenty-seven patients were identified: median age 67 years, pT1 82%, pN0 56%, margin negative 100%. All received 38.5 Gy using 3–5 noncoplanar photon beams (6-15X). Electrons (9–20 MeV) were included in 59%. Median follow-up was 22 months. Ninety percent experienced good/excellent cosmetic outcomes. Two patients had fair cosmesis, and both were treated with a mixed photon/electron approach. Median conformity index for photon-only treatment plans was 1.7 (range, 0.9–2.0) and for photon/electron plans, 1.0 (0.3–1.4). Median percent ipsilateral breast volume receiving 100% and 50% of prescription dose was 19 and 50 for photon-only plans vs. 10 and 38 for photon/electron plans (p &lt; 0.05). Median percent target volume receiving 100% and 95% of prescription dose was 93 and 98 for photon-only plans vs. 75 and 94 for photon/electron plans (p &lt; 0.05). A mixed photon/electron, noncoplanar technique decreases the volume of treated normal breast tissue at the cost of slightly decreased tumor bed coverage. Further study is needed to determine whether this results in a more favorable therapeutic ratio than photon-only approaches.</description><dc:title>A Comparison of Clinical and Dosimetric Outcomes in Patients Receiving Partial Breast Irradiation with Photon-Only versus Mixed Photon/Electron Treatment Plans</dc:title><dc:creator>Mira M. Shah, Janet K. Horton, Sua Yoo, Jessica L. Hubbs, Senem Demirci, Kim L. Light, Kathy Temple, Michael Patrone, Lawrence B. Marks</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.10.004</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-28</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-28</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>423</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>428</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001950/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Compensation of Missed Fractions Without Knowledge of Radiobiological Parameters</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001950/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: The purpose of this work was to develop simple formulas that can be used to estimate the biologic effect of missed radiotherapy fractions independently of radiobiological parameters. This is achieved by expressing the limits in biologically effective dose for very low or very high radiobiological parameter ratios. Worked examples are given.</description><dc:title>Compensation of Missed Fractions Without Knowledge of Radiobiological Parameters</dc:title><dc:creator>Marco Carlone</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.10.005</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-14</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-14</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>429</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>433</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001962/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Improved Treatment of the Breast and Supraclavicular Fossa Based on a Simple Geometrical Principle</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001962/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: In breast cancer, nodal irradiation has become routine, but adds time and creates concerns for field overlap if the “match” is not accurate. We developed a technique to address these issues by using only one isocenter for both areas. Tangents are designed at simulation. The isocenter is then shifted to the upper border of the breast using a straightforward geometrical calculation. After determining the new isocenter, fields are recreated wherein the tangents are treated with a quarter beam and the supraclavicular field fashioned with a half-beam block. The gantry, collimator, and couch angles of the supraclavicular field are adjusted to achieve an accurate match. Ten patients were evaluated. Doses to the spinal cord and brachial plexus were lowered relative to conventional techniques. The hot spots were not augmented. In comparison with standard arrangements, setup time decreased. Accurate matching was consistently achieved and verified by portal imaging. A new approach for treating the supraclavicular fossa is easily executed. Advantages include negligible doses to the critical neural structures (i.e., spinal cord and brachial plexus), optimized matchline, and reduced setup time.</description><dc:title>Improved Treatment of the Breast and Supraclavicular Fossa Based on a Simple Geometrical Principle</dc:title><dc:creator>Dalia Yavetz, Benjamin W. Corn, Diana Matceyevsky, Rahamim Ben-Josef, Viacheslav Soyfer, Igal Bershtein, Moshe Inbar, Ilan Ron, Irena Jiveliouk, Dan Schifter</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.11.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-14</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-14</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>434</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>439</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001974/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Analysis of Incidental Radiation Dose to Uninvolved Mediastinal/Supraclavicular Lymph Nodes in Patients with Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated Without Elective Nodal Irradiation</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001974/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Classic teaching states that treatment of limited-stage small cell lung cancer (L-SCLC) requires large treatment fields covering the entire mediastinum. However, a trend in modern thoracic radiotherapy is toward more conformal fields, employing positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans to determine the gross tumor volume (GTV). This analysis evaluates the dosimetric results when using selective nodal irradiation (SNI) to treat a patient with L-SCLC, quantitatively comparing the results to standard Intergroup treatment fields. Sixteen consecutive patients with L-SCLC and central mediastinal disease who also underwent pretherapy PET/CT scans were studied in this analysis. For each patient, we created SNI treatment volumes, based on the PET/CT-based criteria for malignancy. We also created 2 ENI plans, the first without heterogeneity corrections, as per the Intergroup 0096 study (ENIoff) and the second with heterogeneity corrections while maintaining constant the number of MUs delivered between these latter 2 plans (ENIon). Nodal stations were contoured using published guidelines, then placed into 4 “bins” (treated nodes, 1 echelon away, &gt;1 echelon away within the mediastinum, contralateral hilar/supraclavicular). These were aggregated across the patients in the study. Dose to these nodal bins and to tumor/normal structures were compared among these plans using pairwise t-tests. The ENIon plans demonstrated a statistically significant degradation in dose coverage compared with the ENIoff plans. ENI and SNI both created a dose gradient to the lymph nodes across the mediastinum. Overall, the gradient was larger for the SNI plans, although the maximum dose to the “1 echelon away” nodes was not statistically different. Coverage of the GTV and planning target volume (PTV) were improved with SNI, while simultaneously reducing esophageal and spinal cord dose though at the expense of modestly reduced dose to anatomically distant lymph nodes within the mediastinum. The ENIon plans demonstrate that intergroup-style treatments, as actually delivered, had statistically reduced coverage to the mediastinum and tumor volumes than was reported. Furthermore, SNI leads to improved tumor coverage and reduced esophageal/spinal cord dose, which suggests the possibility of dose escalation using SNI.</description><dc:title>Analysis of Incidental Radiation Dose to Uninvolved Mediastinal/Supraclavicular Lymph Nodes in Patients with Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated Without Elective Nodal Irradiation</dc:title><dc:creator>Irfan Ahmed, Marylou DeMarco, Craig W. Stevens, William J. Fulp, Thomas J. Dilling</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.11.002</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-14</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-14</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>440</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>447</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001986/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Dosimetric Comparison of RapidArc with Fixed Gantry Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Treatment for Multiple Liver Metastases Radiotherapy</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001986/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: We wanted to compare the dosimetric difference and treatment efficiency of RapidArc and fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) for multiple liver metastases. Computed tomography datasets of 10 patients were studied retrospectively. IMRT plans were generated using 5 fields and RapidArc using either 1 or 2 arcs. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and the normal tissue were compared. Monitor units and treatment time were scored to measure expected treatment efficiency. Both RapidArc and IMRT plans resulted in equivalent target coverage. There was no statistically significant difference for the maximum and the minimum dose of PTV. RapidArc plans achieved an improved conformity index compared with IMRT (RA1 = 1.68 ± 0.27, RA2 = 1.61 ± 0.25, IMRT = 1.80 ± 0.37). For OARs, all techniques respected planning objectives. RapidArc plans had a lower dose in V40 of small bowel than IMRT, but were higher in mean dose of kidneys. Concerning the V5, V10, and V15 of healthy tissue, RapidArc plans were higher than IMRT. However, the V20, V25, and V30 of healthy tissue in RapidArc plans were lower than IMRT. Monitor units per fraction of RapidArc plans were about 40% or 46% of IMRT. Compared with IMRT plans, treatment time of RapidArc plans were reduced by 60% or 70%. All techniques respected planning objectives. RapidArc showed statistical improvements in conformity index and healthy tissue sparing with uncompromised target coverage. This, in combination with fewer monitor units and short delivery time, can lead to clinically significant advances for the treatment of multiple liver metastases.</description><dc:title>Dosimetric Comparison of RapidArc with Fixed Gantry Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Treatment for Multiple Liver Metastases Radiotherapy</dc:title><dc:creator>Yong Yin, Changsheng Ma, Min Gao, Jinhu Chen, Yidong Ma, Tonghai Liu, Jie Lu, Jinming Yu</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.12.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-04-08</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-04-08</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>448</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>454</prism:endingPage></item><item rdf:about="http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001998/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Endocavitary in vivo Dosimetry for IMRT Treatments of Gynecologic Tumors</title><link>http://www.meddos.org/article/PIIS0958394710001998/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: The accuracy and reproducibility of endometrial carcinoma treatment with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was assessed by means of in vivo dosimetry. Six patients who had previously undergone radical hysterectomy for endometrial carcinoma were treated with IMRT using a vaginal applicator with radio-opaque fiducial markers. An ion-chamber inserted into the applicator supplied an endocavitary in vivo dosimetry for quality assurance purposes. The ratio R = D/DTPS between the in vivo measured dose D and the predicted dose by the treatment planning system DTPS was determined for every fraction of the treatment. Results showed that 90% and 100% of the ratios resulted equal to 1 within 5% and 10%, respectively. The mean value of the ratios distribution for the 6 patients was R = 0.995 and the SD = 0.034. The ratio R* between the measured and predicted total doses for each patient was near to 1, within 2%. The dosimetric results suggest that the use of a vaginal applicator in an image-guided approach could make the interfractions target position stable and reproducible, allowing a safe use of the IMRT technique in the treatment of postoperative vaginal vault. In vivo dosimetry may supply useful information about the discrimination of random vs. systematic errors. The workload is minimum and this in vivo dosimetry can be applied also in the clinical routine.</description><dc:title>Endocavitary in vivo Dosimetry for IMRT Treatments of Gynecologic Tumors</dc:title><dc:creator>Savino Cilla, Gabriella Macchia, Cinzia Digesù, Francesco Deodato, Domenico Sabatino, Alessio G. Morganti, Angelo Piermattei</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.meddos.2010.12.002</dc:identifier><dc:source>Medical Dosimetry 36, 4 (2011)</dc:source><dc:date>2011-03-14</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Medical Dosimetry</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2011-03-14</prism:publicationDate><prism:volume>36</prism:volume><prism:number>4</prism:number><prism:issueIdentifier>S0958-3947(11)X0005-5</prism:issueIdentifier><prism:section></prism:section><prism:startingPage>455</prism:startingPage><prism:endingPage>462</prism:endingPage></item></rdf:RDF>
