Premium
SU‐FF‐T‐195: Effect of Respiratory Gating On the Dose Distributions of Dynamic Wedge and IMRT Treatment Fields
Author(s) -
Lindsay P,
Briere T,
Balter P,
Sadagopan R,
Starkschall G,
Zhu X,
Beddar S
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.2760855
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , ionization chamber , gating , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , linear particle accelerator , materials science , respiratory monitoring , wedge (geometry) , biomedical engineering , optics , beam (structure) , physics , medicine , respiratory system , ion , physiology , quantum mechanics , ionization
Purpose: To determine the magnitude of error introduced into treatment delivery due to timing effects between respiratory‐gated delivery and dynamic beam delivery (enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) and step‐and‐shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)). Method and Materials: EDW and IMRT fields were delivered on a linear accelerator (Trilogy, Varian Medical Systems). Gating of the beam was achieved using a commercial respiratory monitoring system (RPM, Varian Medical Systems), and respiratory motion was simulated using a commercial respiratory motion phantom (RPM phantom, Varian Medical Systems). All fields were delivered with no gating, a 1‐mm gating window, and a 2‐mm gating window. Film and ion chamber measurements were made for both EDW and IMRT fields in a water‐equivalent IMRT QA phantom, which was stationary during all measurements. Film measurements used EDR‐2 film, while ion chamber measurements were made with a 0.04 cc volume pin‐point chamber. Leakage current was subtracted from the ion chamber readings. Wedged fields of 15 and 60 degrees were delivered at a dose rate of 600 MU/min. Results were evaluated for the full IMRT plan and for one of the individual beams, at dose rates of 400 and 600 MU/min. Results: All ion chamber measurements were analyzed as percent difference between the gated (1‐mm or 2‐mm gating window) and non‐gated delivery. All differences were less than 1%. There were no significant differences between 1‐mm and 2‐mm gated delivery. Film results, as analyzed from isodose curves and the gamma metric, showed no substantial differences between gated and non‐gated beam delivery. Conclusion: The use of gated treatment delivery of EDW and step‐and‐shoot IMRT fields does not introduce clinically significant differences into the resulting dose distributions, as quantified by film and ion chamber measurements.