English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of the study was to determine the influence of a key treatment plan and beam parameters on overall dose distribution and on doses in organs laying in further distance from the target during prostate SBRT. Multiple representative treatment plans (n = 12) for TrueBeam and CyberKnife were prepared and evaluated. Nontarget doses were measured with anionization chamber, in a quasi-humanoid phantom at four sites corresponding to the intestines, right lung, thyroid, and head. The following parameters were modified: radiotherapy technique, presence or not of a flattening filter, degree of modulation, and use or not of jaw tracking function for TrueBeam and beam orientation set-up, optimization techniques, and number of MUs for CyberKnife. After usual optimization doses in intestines (near the target) were 0.73% and 0.76%, in head (farthest from target) 0.05% and 0.19% for TrueBeam and CyberKnife, respectively. For TrueBeam the highest peripheral (head, thyroid, lung) doses occurred for the VMAT with the flattening filter while the lowest for 3DCRT. For CyberKnife the highest doses were for gantry with caudal direction beams blocked (gantry close to OARs) while the lowest was the low modulated VOLO optimization technique. The easiest method to reduce peripheral doses was to combine FFF with jaw tracking and reducing monitor units at TrueBeam and to avoid gantry position close to OARs together with reduction of monitor units at CyberKnife, respectively. The presented strategies allowed to significantly reduce out-of-field and nontarget doses during prostate radiotherapy delivered with TrueBeam and CyberKnife. A different approach was required to reduce peripheral doses because of the difference in dose delivery techniques: non-coplanar using CyberKnife and coplanar using TrueBeam, respectively.

Influence of Specific Treatment Parameters on Nontarget and Out-of-Field Doses in a Phantom Model of Prostate SBRT with CyberKnife and TrueBeam