Open AccessPlanning and delivery of intensity modulated bolus electron conformal therapy
Author(s) -
Hilliard Elizabeth N.,
Carver Robert L.,
Chambers Erin L.,
Kavanaugh James A.,
Erhart Kevin J.,
McGuffey Andrew S.,
Hogstrom Kenneth R.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.13386
Subject(s) - materials science , quality assurance , intensity modulation , intensity (physics) , medical physics , computer science , medicine , optics , physics , external quality assessment , pathology , phase modulation , phase noise
Purpose Bolus electron conformal therapy (BECT) is a clinically useful, well‐documented, and available technology. The addition of intensity modulation (IM) to BECT reduces volumes of high dose and dose spread in the planning target volume (PTV). This paper demonstrates new techniques for a process that should be suitable for planning and delivering IM‐BECT using passive radiotherapy intensity modulation for electrons (PRIME) devices. Methods The IM‐BECT planning and delivery process is an addition to the BECT process that includes intensity modulator design, fabrication, and quality assurance. The intensity modulator (PRIME device) is a hexagonal matrix of small island blocks (tungsten pins of varying diameter) placed inside the patient beam‐defining collimator (cutout). Its design process determines a desirable intensity‐modulated electron beam during the planning process, then determines the island block configuration to deliver that intensity distribution (segmentation). The intensity modulator is fabricated and quality assurance performed at the factory (.decimal, LLC, Sanford, FL). Clinical quality assurance consists of measuring a fluence distribution in a plane perpendicular to the beam in a water or water‐equivalent phantom. This IM‐BECT process is described and demonstrated for two sites, postmastectomy chest wall and temple. Dose plans, intensity distributions, fabricated intensity modulators, and quality assurance results are presented. Results IM‐BECT plans showed improved D 90‐10 over BECT plans, 6.4% versus 7.3% and 8.4% versus 11.0% for the postmastectomy chest wall and temple, respectively. Their intensity modulators utilized 61 (single diameter) and 246 (five diameters) tungsten pins, respectively. Dose comparisons for clinical quality assurance showed that for doses greater than 10%, measured agreed with calculated dose within 3% or 0.3 cm distance‐to‐agreement (DTA) for 99.9% and 100% of points, respectively. Conclusion These results demonstrated the feasibility of translating IM‐BECT to the clinic using the techniques presented for treatment planning, intensity modulator design and fabrication, and quality assurance processes.