IMAT. 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL

Transkript

1 IMAT 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL

2 Treatment Time Intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) was introduced by Cedric X. Yu in Rao et al. (2010) compared VMAT treatments with fixedbeam IMRT and helical tomotherapy treatments. VMAT treatment times varied from 2.1 to 4.6 minutes, IMRT treatment times varied from 7.9 to 11.1 minutes, and tomotherapy treatment times varied from 4.0 to 7.0 minutes. Other work has shown similar decreases in treatment time (Otto, Milette, andwu 2007; Otto 2008; Verbakel et al. 2009). 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL

3 Both decreased treatment time and increased MU efficiency have been achieved while maintaining target coverage and OAR sparing similar to fixedbeam IMRT. In some cases, VMAT has shown better OAR sparing than fixed-beam IMRT (Otto 2008; Palma et al. 2008; Rao et al. 2010). The main disadvantage of VMAT has been an increased optimization time as compared to fixed-beam IMRT (Rao et al. 2010). Developments continued Gordon Mark Mancuso. May UROK Nina TUNÇEL

4 PROSTAT KANSERİNDE TEK ARK VE ÇİFT ARK İLE YAPILAN IMAT PLANLARININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI Kerime Kayacan 1,Canan Köksal 1,Ümmühan Nurhat 1, Aydın Çakır 1, Murat Okutan 1, M.Emin Darendeliler 2,Makbule Tambaş 2,Hatice Bilge 1 1 İstanbul Üniversitesi Onkoloji Enstitüsü Tıbbi Radyofizik Bilim Dalı 2 İstanbul Üniversitesi İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Radyasyon Onkolojisi Ana Bilim Dalı 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL

5

6

7

8

9

10 UROK Nina TUNÇEL

11

12

13

14

15 LOKAL İLERİ REKTUM KANSERİNİN NEOADJUVAN RADYOTERAPİSİNDE VOLUMETRİK ARK TEDAVİSİNİN KONFORMAL TEKNİKLERLE DOZİMETRİK KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI Züleyha Akgün, Serap B.Yücel, Sezgi Turan, Zeynep Özen, Fatma Likoğlu, Ceren Ezgi, Ufuk Abacıoğlu, Esra K.Sağlam 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL

16

17

18

19

20

21 Conclusions: SIB-VMAT plans can be planned and carried out with high quality and efficiency for rectal cancer, providing similar sparing of organs at risk to SIBIMRT and resulting in the most efficient treatment option. SIB-VMAT is currently our standard approach for radiotherapy of locally advanced rectal cancer. 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL

22 PTVS Normal Tissue Toxicity Rectum Bladder Femur Small Bowel Skin and External Genitalia Bone Marrow Treatment Time Bladder Femur Small Bowel Skin and External Genitalia 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL Bone Marrow

23 Tedavi Planlama Sistemlerinin Doz Hesaplamalarının Doku İnhomojenitelerinde Monte Carlo Yöntemi ile Karşılaştırılması Türkay TOKLU 1, Bahar DİRİCAN 2, Yelda ELÇİM KAHYA 2, Necdet ASLAN 1 1 Yeditepe Üniversitesi, Fizik Bölümü 2 Gülhane Askeri Tıp Akademisi, Radyasyon Onkolojisi AD. 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL

24 Monte Carlo Yönteminin Medikal Fizik Uygulamaları TPS QA Doku İnhomojeniteler Pencil Beam (PB) Collapsed Cone onvolution/superposition (CS) Monte Carlo (MC) 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL

25

26

27 In conclusion, not one pair of the dose calculation algorithms we investigated could provide results that were consistent within 5% for all 10 patients for the set of clinically relevant dose-volume indices studied. As the results from both CS algorithms differed significantly, care should be taken when evaluating treatment plans as the choice of dose calculation algorithm may influence clinical results. Full Monte Carlo provides a great benchmarking tool for evaluating the performance of other algorithms for patient dose computations American Association of Physicists in Medicine. DOI: / UROK Nina TUNÇEL

28

29 Results: For the lung cancer group, differences between the reconstructed mean PTV dose and the values calculated with the TPS were 5.0 ± 4.2% (1SD) and 1.4 ± 1.5% for the CA and SA algorithm, respectively. No large differences in the lung and spinal cord DVH parameters were found. For the IMRT treatments, the average dose differences in the PTV were generally below 3%. The reconstructed mean parotid gland dose was 3.2 ± 1.2% lower, while the maximum spinal cord dose was on average 3.1 ± 1.9% higher. Conclusions: EPID dosimetry combined with 3D dose reconstruction is a useful procedure for patient-specific QA of complex treatments. DVH parameters can be used to interpret the dose distribution delivered to the patient in the same way as during standard treatment plan evaluation. 10.UROK Nina TUNÇEL