Anthromorphic Rando phantom placed on a Vac-Lok bag as a part of treatment and imaging procedures. A point in the phantom is aligned at the virtual isocenter, which is located outside the bore of the gantry. The coordinate system is shown in the upper left corner. The gantry has its covers removed.
Isodose distribution shown on a patient CT, as calculated by the tomotherapy treatment planning. The left-side [(A), (B), (C), (D)] panel shows the planning dose distribution for total body irradiation. The right-side [(E), (F), (G)] shows the planning dose distribution for total bone marrow irradiation. Planning was done with a field width.
Dose volume histogram for total body irradiation plan. Planning was done with field width.
The effect of field width (J), MF, and pitch (P) on DVH for total body irradiation shown from left to right, respectively. The dose scale is drawn from to amplify the DVH variations with J, MF, and P.
Dose volume histogram for the total marrow irradiation plan. Planning was done with a field width. The marrow target included a margin.
Dose volume histogram for a total marrow target using the and field width, with and without a margin. Higher conformality is obtained with the field width.
Bar chart shown for bone target and critical organs—lungs, eyes, heart, kidneys, and liver. Four bars in each group represents the average dose for 2.5 and field width for bone marrow only and bone marrow margin with standard deviation as an uncertainty.
(A) Whole body MVCT, treatment planning kVCT, and fused images in a coronal view. (B) Limited MVCT at the level of (I) head, (II) chest, and (III) pelvis; treatment planning kVCT; and fused images in a coronal view. The saggital sectional view is shown in (C) and (D), and the transverse sectional view is shown in (E) and (F). For each panel, the fusion column presents the kVCT in gray scale with the MVCT superimposed with a level of transparency in yellow.
Average dose coverage (for total 8 fractions, ) for different organs with variations in field width (MF 2.0 and pitch 0.46).
Average dose coverage (for total 8 fraction, ) and impact of MF on the average dose in various OARs and target (field width and pitch 0.46).
Average dose coverage (for total 8 fraction, ) and impact of pitch on average dose in various OARs and target (field width and MF 3.0). Note: means reduction and means increment in percentage mean dose in eight fractions.
A comparison of the lateral (Tx), longitudinal (Ty), and vertical (Tz) (IEC nomenclature) and roll offsets resulting from fusion for the average of the limited MVCT (fifth row) and whole body MVCT (last row). The uncertainties for the average values were obtained by adding the individual uncertainties in quadrature.
Doses measured with TLD compared to prescribed doses at the selected points in the rando phantom irradiated with helical tomotherapy for a single fraction . The uncertainty in TLD reading (radiation dose measurement) was 5%.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...