Search

The ratio of patients who need a treatment adaptation due to anatomical variations at least once during the treatment course is significantly higher in light ion beam therapy (LIBT) than in photon therapy. The ballistic behaviour of ion beams makes them more sensitive to changes. Hence, the delivery of LIBT has always been supported by state of art image guidance. On the contrary CBCT technology was adapted for LIBT quite late. Adaptive concepts are being implemented more frequently in photon therapy and also efficient workflows are needed for LIBT. The MedAustron Ion Beam Therapy Centre was designed to allow the clinical implementation of adaptive image-guided concepts. The aim of this paper is to describe the current status and the potential future use of the technology installed at MedAustron. Specifically addressed is the beam delivery system, the patient alignment system, the treatment planning system as well as the Record & Verify system. Finally, an outlook is given on how high quality X-ray imaging, MR image guidance, fast and automated treatment planning as well as in vivo range verification methods could be integrated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Medizinische Physik is the property of Elsevier GmbH, Urban & Fischer Verlag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: To assess the dosimetric differences among volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), scanned proton therapy (intensity-modulated proton therapy, IMPT), scanned carbon-ion therapy (intensity-modulated carbon-ion therapy, IMIT), and low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Ten patients were considered for this planning study. For external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), planning target volume was created by adding a margin of 5 mm (lateral/anterior–posterior) and 8 mm (superior–inferior) to the clinical target volume. Bladder wall (BW), rectal wall (RW), femoral heads, urethra, and pelvic tissue were considered as organs at risk. For VMAT and IMPT, 78 Gy(relative biological effectiveness, RBE)/2 Gy were prescribed. The IMIT was based on 66 Gy(RBE)/20 fractions. The clinical target volume planning aims for HDR-BT (192Ir) and LDR-BT (125I) were D90% ≥34 Gy in 8.5 Gy per fraction and D90% ≥145 Gy. Both physical and RBE-weighted dose distributions for protons and carbon-ions were converted to dose distributions based on 2-Gy(IsoE) fractions. From these dose distributions various dose and dose–volume parameters were extracted. Results: Rectal wall exposure 30-70 Gy(IsoE) was reduced for IMIT, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT when compared with VMAT and IMPT. The high-dose region of the BW dose–volume histogram above 50 Gy(IsoE) of IMPT resembled the VMAT shape, whereas all other techniques showed a significantly lower high-dose region. For all 3 EBRT techniques similar urethra Dmean around 74 Gy(IsoE) were obtained. The LDR-BT results were approximately 30 Gy(IsoE) higher, HDR-BT 10 Gy(IsoE) lower. Normal tissue and femoral head sparing was best with BT. Conclusion: Despite the different EBRT prescription and fractionation schemes, the high-dose regions of BW and RW expressed in Gy(IsoE) were on the same order of magnitude. Brachytherapy techniques were clearly superior in terms of BW, RW, and normal tissue sparing, with lowest values for HDR-BT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background and purpose: The aim of this work was to compare the accuracy of different HU adjustments for CBCT-based dose calculation. Methods and materials: Dose calculation was performed on CBCT images of 30 patients. In the first two approaches phantom-based (Pha-CC) and population-based (Pop-CC) conversion curves were used. The third method (WAB) represents override of the structures with standard densities for water, air and bone. In ROI mapping approach all structures were overridden with average HUs from planning CT. All techniques were benchmarked to the Pop-CC and CT-based plans by DVH comparison and γ-index analysis. Results: For prostate plans, WAB and ROI mapping compared to Pop-CC showed differences in PTV Dmedian below 2%. The WAB and Pha-CC methods underestimated the bladder dose in IMRT plans. In lung cases PTV coverage was underestimated by Pha-CC method by 2.3% and slightly overestimated by the WAB and ROI techniques. The use of the Pha-CC method for head–neck IMRT plans resulted in difference in PTV coverage up to 5%. Dose calculation with WAB and ROI techniques showed better agreement with pCT than conversion curve-based approaches. Conclusions: Density override techniques provide an accurate alternative to the conversion curve-based methods for dose calculation on CBCT images. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]