dc.contributor.author | Smyth, G | |
dc.contributor.author | Evans, PM | |
dc.contributor.author | Bamber, JC | |
dc.contributor.author | Mandeville, HC | |
dc.contributor.author | Rollo Moore, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Welsh, LC | |
dc.contributor.author | Saran, FH | |
dc.contributor.author | Bedford, JL | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-06T09:40:44Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019-04-05 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Physics in medicine and biology, 2019, 64 (8), pp. 08NT01 - ? | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0031-9155 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/3143 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1361-6560 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1088/1361-6560/ab0a8e | |
dc.description.abstract | Radiotherapy treatment plans using dynamic couch rotation during volumetric modulated arc therapy (DCR-VMAT) reduce the dose to organs at risk (OARs) compared to coplanar VMAT, while maintaining the dose to the planning target volume (PTV). This paper seeks to validate this finding with measurements. DCR-VMAT treatment plans were produced for five patients with primary brain tumours and delivered using a commercial linear accelerator (linac). Dosimetric accuracy was assessed using point dose and radiochromic film measurements. Linac-recorded mechanical errors were assessed by extracting deviations from log files for multi-leaf collimator (MLC), couch, and gantry positions every 20 ms. Dose distributions, reconstructed from every fifth log file sample, were calculated and used to determine deviations from the treatment plans. Median (range) treatment delivery times were 125 s (123-133 s) for DCR-VMAT, compared to 78 s (64-130 s) for coplanar VMAT. Absolute point doses were 0.8% (0.6%-1.7%) higher than prediction. For coronal and sagittal films, respectively, 99.2% (96.7%-100%) and 98.1% (92.9%-99.0%) of pixels above a 20% low dose threshold reported gamma <1 for 3% and 3 mm criteria. Log file analysis showed similar gantry rotation root-mean-square error (RMSE) for VMAT and DCR-VMAT. Couch rotation RMSE for DCR-VMAT was 0.091° (0.086-0.102°). For delivered dose reconstructions, 100% of pixels above a 5% low dose threshold reported gamma <1 for 2% and 2 mm criteria in all cases. DCR-VMAT, for the primary brain tumour cases studied, can be delivered accurately using a commercial linac. | |
dc.format | Electronic | |
dc.format.extent | 08NT01 - ? | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | IOP PUBLISHING LTD | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
dc.subject | Humans | |
dc.subject | Brain Neoplasms | |
dc.subject | Radiotherapy Dosage | |
dc.subject | Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted | |
dc.subject | Algorithms | |
dc.subject | Rotation | |
dc.subject | Particle Accelerators | |
dc.subject | Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated | |
dc.subject | Patient Positioning | |
dc.subject | Organs at Risk | |
dc.title | Dosimetric accuracy of dynamic couch rotation during volumetric modulated arc therapy (DCR-VMAT) for primary brain tumours. | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2019-02-26 | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1088/1361-6560/ab0a8e | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2019-04-05 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Physics in medicine and biology | |
pubs.issue | 8 | |
pubs.notes | Not known | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Paediatric and Adolescent Radiotherapy | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Radiotherapy treatment planning | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Radiotherapy treatment planning/Radiotherapy treatment planning (hon.) | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Ultrasound & Optical Imaging | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Paediatric and Adolescent Radiotherapy | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Radiotherapy treatment planning | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Radiotherapy treatment planning/Radiotherapy treatment planning (hon.) | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Ultrasound & Optical Imaging | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units | |
pubs.publication-status | Published | |
pubs.volume | 64 | |
pubs.embargo.terms | Not known | |
icr.researchteam | Paediatric and Adolescent Radiotherapy | |
icr.researchteam | Radiotherapy treatment planning | |
icr.researchteam | Ultrasound & Optical Imaging | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | Bamber, Jeffrey | |