Dose evaluation indices for total body irradiation using TomoDirect with different numbers of ports

A comparison with the TomoHelical method

Yuki Kasai, Yukihide Fukuyama, Hiromi Terashima, Katsumasa Nakamura, Tomonari Sasaki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

TomoDirect has been reported to have some advantages over TomoHelical in delivering total body irradiation (TBI). This study aimed to investigate the relationships between the number of ports and the dose evaluation indices in low-dose TBI in TomoDirect mode using 2–12 ports and to compare these data with those for the TomoHelical mode in a simulation study. Thirteen patients underwent low-dose TBI in TomoHelical mode from June 2015 to June 2016. We used the same computed tomography data sets for these patients to create new treatment plans for upper-body parts using TomoDirect mode with 2–12 beam angles as well as TomoHelical mode. The prescription was 4 Gy in two equal fractions. For the TomoDirect data, we generated plans with 2–12 ports with approximately equally spaced angles; the modulation factor, field width, and pitch were 2.0, 5.0 cm, and 0.500, respectively. For the TomoHelical plans, the modulation factor, field width, and pitch were 2.0, 5.0 cm, and 0.397, respectively. D2, D98, D50, and the homogeneity index (HI) were evaluated to compare TomoDirect plans having 2–12 ports with the TomoHelical plan. Using TomoDirect plans, D2 with four ports or fewer, D98 with 10 ports or fewer, D50 with four ports or fewer and HI with five ports or fewer showed statistically significantly worse results than the TomoHelical plan. With the TomoDirect plans, D2 with seven ports or more, D50 with eight ports or more, and HI with eight ports or more showed statistically significant improvement compared with the TomoHelical plan. All of the dose evaluation indices of the TomoDirect plans showed a tendency to improve as the number of ports increased. TomoDirect plans showed statistically significant improvement of D2, D50, and HI compared with the TomoHelical plan. Therefore, we conclude that TomoDirect can provide better dose distribution in low-dose TBI with TomoTherapy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)129-135
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Volume20
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Whole-Body Irradiation
Dosimetry
Irradiation
dosage
irradiation
evaluation
homogeneity
Modulation
Human Body
Prescriptions
Tomography
modulation
tendencies
Therapeutics
tomography

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiation
  • Instrumentation
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Dose evaluation indices for total body irradiation using TomoDirect with different numbers of ports : A comparison with the TomoHelical method. / Kasai, Yuki; Fukuyama, Yukihide; Terashima, Hiromi; Nakamura, Katsumasa; Sasaki, Tomonari.

In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 20, No. 2, 01.02.2019, p. 129-135.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2f467305afaa49d98f961c5e5b4fcccc,
title = "Dose evaluation indices for total body irradiation using TomoDirect with different numbers of ports: A comparison with the TomoHelical method",
abstract = "TomoDirect has been reported to have some advantages over TomoHelical in delivering total body irradiation (TBI). This study aimed to investigate the relationships between the number of ports and the dose evaluation indices in low-dose TBI in TomoDirect mode using 2–12 ports and to compare these data with those for the TomoHelical mode in a simulation study. Thirteen patients underwent low-dose TBI in TomoHelical mode from June 2015 to June 2016. We used the same computed tomography data sets for these patients to create new treatment plans for upper-body parts using TomoDirect mode with 2–12 beam angles as well as TomoHelical mode. The prescription was 4 Gy in two equal fractions. For the TomoDirect data, we generated plans with 2–12 ports with approximately equally spaced angles; the modulation factor, field width, and pitch were 2.0, 5.0 cm, and 0.500, respectively. For the TomoHelical plans, the modulation factor, field width, and pitch were 2.0, 5.0 cm, and 0.397, respectively. D2, D98, D50, and the homogeneity index (HI) were evaluated to compare TomoDirect plans having 2–12 ports with the TomoHelical plan. Using TomoDirect plans, D2 with four ports or fewer, D98 with 10 ports or fewer, D50 with four ports or fewer and HI with five ports or fewer showed statistically significantly worse results than the TomoHelical plan. With the TomoDirect plans, D2 with seven ports or more, D50 with eight ports or more, and HI with eight ports or more showed statistically significant improvement compared with the TomoHelical plan. All of the dose evaluation indices of the TomoDirect plans showed a tendency to improve as the number of ports increased. TomoDirect plans showed statistically significant improvement of D2, D50, and HI compared with the TomoHelical plan. Therefore, we conclude that TomoDirect can provide better dose distribution in low-dose TBI with TomoTherapy.",
author = "Yuki Kasai and Yukihide Fukuyama and Hiromi Terashima and Katsumasa Nakamura and Tomonari Sasaki",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/acm2.12540",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "129--135",
journal = "Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dose evaluation indices for total body irradiation using TomoDirect with different numbers of ports

T2 - A comparison with the TomoHelical method

AU - Kasai, Yuki

AU - Fukuyama, Yukihide

AU - Terashima, Hiromi

AU - Nakamura, Katsumasa

AU - Sasaki, Tomonari

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - TomoDirect has been reported to have some advantages over TomoHelical in delivering total body irradiation (TBI). This study aimed to investigate the relationships between the number of ports and the dose evaluation indices in low-dose TBI in TomoDirect mode using 2–12 ports and to compare these data with those for the TomoHelical mode in a simulation study. Thirteen patients underwent low-dose TBI in TomoHelical mode from June 2015 to June 2016. We used the same computed tomography data sets for these patients to create new treatment plans for upper-body parts using TomoDirect mode with 2–12 beam angles as well as TomoHelical mode. The prescription was 4 Gy in two equal fractions. For the TomoDirect data, we generated plans with 2–12 ports with approximately equally spaced angles; the modulation factor, field width, and pitch were 2.0, 5.0 cm, and 0.500, respectively. For the TomoHelical plans, the modulation factor, field width, and pitch were 2.0, 5.0 cm, and 0.397, respectively. D2, D98, D50, and the homogeneity index (HI) were evaluated to compare TomoDirect plans having 2–12 ports with the TomoHelical plan. Using TomoDirect plans, D2 with four ports or fewer, D98 with 10 ports or fewer, D50 with four ports or fewer and HI with five ports or fewer showed statistically significantly worse results than the TomoHelical plan. With the TomoDirect plans, D2 with seven ports or more, D50 with eight ports or more, and HI with eight ports or more showed statistically significant improvement compared with the TomoHelical plan. All of the dose evaluation indices of the TomoDirect plans showed a tendency to improve as the number of ports increased. TomoDirect plans showed statistically significant improvement of D2, D50, and HI compared with the TomoHelical plan. Therefore, we conclude that TomoDirect can provide better dose distribution in low-dose TBI with TomoTherapy.

AB - TomoDirect has been reported to have some advantages over TomoHelical in delivering total body irradiation (TBI). This study aimed to investigate the relationships between the number of ports and the dose evaluation indices in low-dose TBI in TomoDirect mode using 2–12 ports and to compare these data with those for the TomoHelical mode in a simulation study. Thirteen patients underwent low-dose TBI in TomoHelical mode from June 2015 to June 2016. We used the same computed tomography data sets for these patients to create new treatment plans for upper-body parts using TomoDirect mode with 2–12 beam angles as well as TomoHelical mode. The prescription was 4 Gy in two equal fractions. For the TomoDirect data, we generated plans with 2–12 ports with approximately equally spaced angles; the modulation factor, field width, and pitch were 2.0, 5.0 cm, and 0.500, respectively. For the TomoHelical plans, the modulation factor, field width, and pitch were 2.0, 5.0 cm, and 0.397, respectively. D2, D98, D50, and the homogeneity index (HI) were evaluated to compare TomoDirect plans having 2–12 ports with the TomoHelical plan. Using TomoDirect plans, D2 with four ports or fewer, D98 with 10 ports or fewer, D50 with four ports or fewer and HI with five ports or fewer showed statistically significantly worse results than the TomoHelical plan. With the TomoDirect plans, D2 with seven ports or more, D50 with eight ports or more, and HI with eight ports or more showed statistically significant improvement compared with the TomoHelical plan. All of the dose evaluation indices of the TomoDirect plans showed a tendency to improve as the number of ports increased. TomoDirect plans showed statistically significant improvement of D2, D50, and HI compared with the TomoHelical plan. Therefore, we conclude that TomoDirect can provide better dose distribution in low-dose TBI with TomoTherapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061198706&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061198706&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acm2.12540

DO - 10.1002/acm2.12540

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 129

EP - 135

JO - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

JF - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

IS - 2

ER -