Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculation of tomotherapy and cyberknife treatment planning systems: A dosimetric study.

PURPOSE: Late toxicities such as second cancer induction become more important as treatment outcome improves. Often the dose distribution calculated with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) is used to estimate radiation carcinogenesis for the radiotherapy patient. However, for locations beyond the treatment field borders, the accuracy is not well known. The aim of this study was to perform detailed out-of-field-measurements for a typical radiotherapy treatment plan administered with a Cyberknife and a Tomotherapy machine and to compare the measurements to the predictions of the TPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individually calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure absorbed dose in an anthropomorphic phantom at 184 locations. The measured dose distributions from 6 MV intensity-modulated treatment beams for CyberKnife and TomoTherapy machines were compared to the dose calculations from the TPS. RESULTS: The TPS are underestimating the dose far away from the target volume. Quantitatively the Cyberknife underestimates the dose at 40cm from the PTV border by a factor of 60, the Tomotherapy TPS by a factor of two. If a 50% dose uncertainty is accepted, the Cyberknife TPS can predict doses down to approximately 10 mGy/treatment Gy, the Tomotherapy-TPS down to 0.75 mGy/treatment Gy. The Cyberknife TPS can then be used up to 10cm from the PTV border the Tomotherapy up to 35cm. CONCLUSIONS: We determined that the Cyberknife and Tomotherapy TPS underestimate substantially the doses far away from the treated volume. It is recommended not to use out-of-field doses from the Cyberknife TPS for applications like modeling of second cancer induction. The Tomotherapy TPS can be used up to 35cm from the PTV border (for a 390 cm(3) large PTV).

Pediatric advance care planning from the perspective of health care professionals: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric advance care planning differs from the adult setting in several aspects, including patients' diagnoses, minor age, and questionable capacity to consent. So far, research has largely neglected the professionals' perspective. AIM: We aimed to investigate the attitudes and needs of health care professionals with regard to pediatric advance care planning. DESIGN: This is a qualitative interview study with experts in pediatric end-of-life care. A qualitative content analysis was performed. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with health care professionals caring for severely ill children/adolescents, from different professions, care settings, and institutions. RESULTS: Perceived problems with pediatric advance care planning relate to professionals' discomfort and uncertainty regarding end-of-life decisions and advance directives. Conflicts may arise between physicians and non-medical care providers because both avoid taking responsibility for treatment limitations according to a minor's advance directive. Nevertheless, pediatric advance care planning is perceived as helpful by providing an action plan for everyone and ensuring that patient/parent wishes are respected. Important requirements for pediatric advance care planning were identified as follows: repeated discussions and shared decision-making with the family, a qualified facilitator who ensures continuity throughout the whole process, multi-professional conferences, as well as professional education on advance care planning. CONCLUSION: Despite a perceived need for pediatric advance care planning, several barriers to its implementation were identified. The results remain to be verified in a larger cohort of health care professionals. Future research should focus on developing and testing strategies for overcoming the existing barriers.