Feasibility study of helical tomotherapy for total body or total marrow irradiation.

Department of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA.
Medical Physics (Impact Factor: 3.01). 11/2005; 32(10):3214-24. DOI: 10.1118/1.2044428
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Total body radiation (TBI) has been used for many years as a preconditioning agent before bone marrow transplantation. Many side effects still plague its use. We investigated the planning and delivery of total body irradiation (TBI) and selective total marrow irradiation (TMI) and a reduced radiation dose to sensitive structures using image-guided helical tomotherapy. To assess the feasibility of using helical tomotherapy, (A) we studied variations in pitch, field width, and modulation factor on total body and total marrow helical tomotherapy treatments. We varied these parameters to provide a uniform dose along with a treatment times similar to conventional TBI (15-30 min). (B) We also investigated limited (head, chest, and pelvis) megavoltage CT (MVCT) scanning for the dimensional pretreatment setup verification rather than total body MVCT scanning to shorten the overall treatment time per treatment fraction. (C) We placed thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) inside a Rando phantom to measure the dose at seven anatomical sites, including the lungs. A simulated TBI treatment showed homogeneous dose coverage (+/-10%) to the whole body. Doses to the sensitive organs were reduced by 35%-70% of the target dose. TLD measurements on Rando showed an accurate dose delivery (+/-7%) to the target and critical organs. In the TMI study, the dose was delivered conformally to the bone marrow only. The TBI and TMI treatment delivery time was reduced (by 50%) by increasing the field width from 2.5 to 5.0 cm in the inferior-superior direction. A limited MVCT reduced the target localization time 60% compared to whole body MVCT. MVCT image-guided helical tomotherapy offers a novel method to deliver a precise, homogeneous radiation dose to the whole body target while reducing the dose significantly to all critical organs. A judicious selection of pitch, modulation factor, and field size is required to produce a homogeneous dose distribution along with an acceptable treatment time. In addition, conformal radiation to the bone marrow appears feasible in an external radiation treatment using image-guided helical tomotherapy.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient-specific dose verification for treatment planning in helical tomotherapy is routinely performed using a homogeneous virtual water cylindrical phantom of 30 cm diameter and 18 cm length (Cheese phantom). Because of this small length, treatment with total marrow irradiation (TMI) requires multiple deliveries of the dose verification procedures to cover a wide range of the target volumes, which significantly prolongs the dose verification process. We propose a fast, simple, and informative patient-specific dose verification method which reduce dose verification time for TMI with helical tomotherapy. We constructed a two-step solid water slab phantom (length 110 cm, height 8 cm, and two-step width of 30 cm and 15 cm), termed the Whole Body Phantom (WB phantom). Three ionization chambers and three EDR-2 films can be inserted to cover extended field TMI treatment delivery. Three TMI treatment plans were conducted with a TomoTherapy HiArt Planning Station and verified using the WB phantom with ion chambers and films. Three regions simulating the head and neck, thorax, and pelvis were covered in a single treatment delivery. The results were compared to those with the cheese phantom supplied by Accuray, Inc. following three treatment deliveries to cover the body from head to pelvis. Use of the WB phantom provided point doses or dose distributions from head and neck to femur in a single treatment delivery of TMI. Patient-specific dose verification with the WB phantom was 62% faster than with the cheese phantom. The average pass rate in gamma analysis with the criteria of a 3-mm distance-to-agreement and 3% dose differences was 94% +/- 2% for the three TMI treatment plans. The differences in pass rates between the WB and cheese phantoms at the upper thorax to abdomen regions were within 2%. The calculated dose agreed with the measured dose within 3% for all points in all five cases in both the WB and cheese phantoms. Our dose verification method with the WB phantom provides simple and rapid quality assurance without limiting dose verification information in total marrow irradiation with helical tomotherapy.
    Radiation Oncology 01/2014; 9(1):34. DOI:10.1186/1748-717X-9-34 · 2.36 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study proposed a method to estimate the beam-on time for prostate cancer patients treated on Tomotherapy when FW (field width), PF (pitch factor), modulation factor (MF) and treatment length (TL) were given. THE STUDY WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS: building and verifying the model. To build a model, 160 treatment plans were created for 10 patients. The plans differed in combination of FW, PF and MF. For all plans a graph of beam-on time as a function of TL was created and a linear trend function was fitted. Equation for each trend line was determined and used in a correlation model. Finally, 62 plans verified the treatment time computation model - the real execution time was compared with our estimation and irradiation time calculated based on the equation provided by the manufacturer. A linear trend function was drawn and the coefficient of determination R (2) and the Pearson correlation coefficient r were calculated for each of the 8 trend lines corresponding to the adequate treatment plan. An equation to correct the model was determined to estimate more accurately the beam-on time for different MFs. From 62 verification treatment plans, only 5 disagreed by more than 60 s with the real time from the HT software. Whereas, for the equation provided by the manufacturer the discrepancy was observed in 16 cases. Our study showed that the model can well predict the treatment time for a given TL, MF, FW and it can be used in clinical practice.
    Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy 07/2013; 18(4):201-8. DOI:10.1016/j.rpor.2012.12.005
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop, characterize, and implement a fast patient localization method for total marrow irradiation. Topographic images were acquired using megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) detector data by delivering static orthogonal beams while the couch traversed through the gantry. Geometric and detector response corrections were performed to generate a megavoltage topogram (MVtopo). We also generated kilovoltage topograms (kVtopo) from the projection data of 3-dimensional CT images to reproduce the same geometry as helical tomotherapy. The MVtopo imaging dose and the optimal image acquisition parameters were investigated. A multi-institutional phantom study was performed to verify the image registration uncertainty. Forty-five MVtopo images were acquired and analyzed with in-house image registration software. The smallest jaw size (front and backup jaws of 0) provided the best image contrast and longitudinal resolution. Couch velocity did not affect the image quality or geometric accuracy. The MVtopo dose was less than the MVCT dose. The image registration uncertainty from the multi-institutional study was within 2.8 mm. In patient localization, the differences in calculated couch shift between the registration with MVtopo-kVtopo and MVCT-kVCT images in lateral, cranial-caudal, and vertical directions were 2.2 ± 1.7 mm, 2.6 ± 1.4 mm, and 2.7 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. The imaging time in MVtopo acquisition at the couch speed of 3 cm/s was <1 minute, compared with ≥15 minutes in MVCT for all patients. Whole-body MVtopo imaging could be an effective alternative to time-consuming MVCT for total marrow irradiation patient localization. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics 10/2014; 91(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.09.014 · 4.18 Impact Factor


Available from