Are you Lars H Præstegaard?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)10 Total impact

  • L. Hoffmann · M. B. Kyed Jørgensen · J. Petersen · L. H. Praestegaard · R. Hansen · L. P. Muren ·

    Radiotherapy and Oncology 05/2011; 99. DOI:10.1016/S0167-8140(11)70335-8 · 4.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    M K Jørgensen · L Hoffmann · J B B Petersen · L H Praestegaard · R Hansen · L P Muren ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) includes features such as a variable dose rate and gantry speed in addition to the beam modulation achieved with multileaf collimator (MLC) motion patterns employed in intensity modulated radiotherapy. Three tests have previously been proposed for the evaluation of the performance of VMAT delivery. In order to enable a convenient and accurate routine machine quality control (QC) program, the present study proposes tolerance levels for these tests based on a department-wide implementation of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based QC. Three different VMAT tests--a picket fence (PF) test, a dose rate versus gantry speed (DRGS) test, and a dose rate versus MLC leaf speed (DRMLC) test--were performed on nine accelerators using two different EPIDs (aS1000 and aS500, Varian Medical Systems). All tests were repeated six times for each accelerator. The images were analyzed using an in-house-developed software. For the PF test, the positions and widths of individual MLC leaf gaps were compared to the mean value. In the DRGS and DRMLC tests, different combinations of dose rate, gantry speed, and MLC leaf speed were used to deliver identical doses to separate parts of the EPID. The tests were evaluated by looking for deviations in the constancy of the measured dose for the preset combinations of dose rate, gantry speed, and MLC leaf speed. For the PF test, a 0.3 mm tolerance level was suggested for the positioning of the MLC leaves. The tolerance level for the gap width was 0.5 mm. For the DRGS and DRMLC tests, a 3% tolerance level was proposed. With the adapted levels of tolerance for an EPID-based approach, the PF, the DRGS, and the DRMLC tests offer a convenient and accurate machine QC program for linear accelerators used for VMAT.
    Medical Physics 03/2011; 38(3):1425-34. DOI:10.1118/1.3552922 · 2.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Localisation errors in cone-beam CT (CBCT) guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) were evaluated and compared to positioning using the external coordinates of a stereotactic body frame (SBF) alone. Possible correlations to patient- or treatment-specific factors such as body mass index (BMI), planning time, treatment delivery time, and distance between tumour and spinal cord were explored to determine whether they influenced on the benefit of image-guidance. A total of 34 patients received SBRT (3 fractions) for tumours in the liver (15 patients) or the lung (19 patients). Immobilisation and positioning was obtained with a SBF. Pre- and post-treatment CBCT scans were registered with the bony anatomy of the planning CT to find inter- and intrafractional patient positioning errors (PPE). For lung tumour patients, matching was also performed on the tumours to find the tumour positioning errors (TPE) and baseline shifts relative to bony anatomy. The mean inter- and intrafractional 3D vector PPE was 4.5 ± 2.7 mm (average ± SD) and 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, respectively, for the combined group of patients. For lung tumours, the interfractional misalignment was 5.6 ± 1.8 mm. The baseline shift was 3.9 ± 2.0 mm. Intrafractional TPE and baseline shifts were 2.1 ± 0.7 mm and 1.9 ± 0.6 mm, respectively. The magnitude of interfractional baseline shift was closely correlated with the distance between the tumour and the spinal cord. Intrafractional errors were independent of patient BMI, age or gender. Image-guidance reduced setup errors considerably. The study demonstrated the benefit of CBCT-guidance regardless of patient specific factors such as BMI, age or gender. Protection of the spinal cord was facilitated by the correlation between the tumour position relative to the spinal cord and the magnitude of baseline shift.
    Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 10/2010; 49(7):1177-83. DOI:10.3109/0284186X.2010.498435 · 3.00 Impact Factor