Dose distribution assessment (comparison) in the target volume treated with VMAT given by the planning system and evaluated by TL dosimeters

Authors

  • Amanda Bravim
  • Roberto Kenji Sakuraba
  • Leticia Lucente Campos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15392/bjrs.v3i1.106

Abstract

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a relatively new therapy technique in which treatment is delivered using a cone beam that rotates around the patient. The radiation is delivered in a continuous gantry rotation while the cone beam is modulated by the intertwining of dynamic multileaf collimators (MLCs). Studies of VMAT plans have shown reduction in the treatment delivery time and monitor units (MU) comparable to IMRT plans improving major comfort to the patient and reducing uncertainties associated with patient movement during treatment. The treatment using VMAT minimizes the biological effects of radiation to critical structures near to the target volumes and produces excellent dose distributions. The dosimetry of ionizing radiation is essential for the radiological protection programs for quality assurance and licensing of equipment.  For radiation oncology a quality assurance program is essentially to maintain the quality of patient care. As the VMAT is a new technique of radiation therapy it is important to optimize quality assurance mechanisms to ensure that tests are performed in order to preserve the patient and the equipment. This paper aims to determinate the dose distribution in the target volume (tumor to be treated) and the scattered dose distribution in the risk organs for VMAT technique comparing data given by the planning system and thermoluminescent (TL) response.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

HALL, E.J. Radiobiology for the radiologist. Lippincott, 1988.

MUNDT, A.J. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy – A clinical perspective. BC Decker Inc., 2005.

BORTFELD, T. Image-Guided IMRT. Springer-Verlag, 2006.

OTTO, K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med. Phys. v. 35, n. 1, p. 310–317, 2008.

VERBAKEL, W.F.; CUIJPERS, J.P.; HOFFMANS, D. Volumetric intensity- modulated arc therapy vs conventional IMRT head-and-neck cancer: A comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. v. 74, n. 1, p. 252–259, 2008.

SHAFFER, R.; NICHOL, A.M.; VOLLANS, E. A comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy for conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy for frontal and temporal high-grade gliomas. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. v. 76, n. 4, p. 1177–1184, 2009.

NGUYEN, K.; CUMMINGS, D.; LANZA, V.C.; MORRIS, K.; WANG, C.; SUTTON, J.; GARCIA, J. A dosimetric comparative study: Volumetric modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of nasal cavity carcinomas. Medical Dosimetry, v. 38, n. 3, p. 225-232, 2013.

ICRU - International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Determina-tion of Absorbed Dose in a Patient Irradiated by Beams of X or Gamma Rays in Radiotherapy Procedures. Report 24, Maryland, 1976.

AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine. A protocol for the determina-tion of absorbed dose from high-energy photon and electron beams (TG-21). Medical Physics, v. 10, n. 6, p. 741-771, 1983.

HANCOCK, S.S. End-to-End Radiosurgery tests with Lucy® Phantom. Radiation Therapy Department, Southeast Missouri, Hospital Missouri, 2008.

PALTA, J.R; LIU, C.; LI, J.G. Quality Assurance of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. v. 71, p. 108-112, 2008.

Downloads

Published

2015-06-23

How to Cite

Bravim, A., Sakuraba, R. K., & Campos, L. L. (2015). Dose distribution assessment (comparison) in the target volume treated with VMAT given by the planning system and evaluated by TL dosimeters. Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.15392/bjrs.v3i1.106

Issue

Section

Articles