Philosophie der Physik

Inhalt: Seit ihren Anfängen bei den Vorsokratikern sind Philosophie und Physik eng miteinander verbunden. Kappt man diese Verbindung, gibt man die Kernaufgabe der Physik - zu Wissen über die Natur zu gelangen - ebenso auf wie die der Philosophie, die grundlegenden Charakteristika der Welt zu erforschen. Dieser Band soll die Vielfalt und Lebendigkeit der philosophischen Auseinandersetzung mit der Physik im deutschsprachigen Raum heute aufzeigen. Er setzt den Schwerpunkt auf die Interpretation der fundamentalen physikalischen Theorien, also die Quantentheorie und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, einschließlich der Quantengravitation und der Quantenfeldtheorie.

Physical considerations on discrepancies in target volume delineation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the delineations and interpretations of target volumes by physicians in different radio-oncology centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven Swiss radio-oncology centers delineated volumes according to ICRU 50 recommendations for one prostate and one head and neck case. In order to evaluate the consistency of the volume delineations, the following parameters were determined: 1) the target volumes (GTV, CTV and manually expanded PTV) and their extensions in the three main axes and 2) the correlation of the volume delineated by each pair of centers using the ratio of the intersection to the union (called proximity index). RESULTS: The delineated prostate volume was 105+/-55cm(3) for the CTV and 218+/-44cm(3) for the PTV. The delineated head and neck volume was 46+/-15cm(3) for the GTV, 327+/-154cm(3) for the CTV and 528+/-106cm(3) for the PTV. The mean proximity index for the prostate case was 0.50+/-0.13 for the CTV and 0.57+/-0.11 for the PTV. The proximity index for the head and neck case was 0.45+/-0.09 for the GTV, 0.42+/-0.13 for the CTV and 0.59+/-0.06 for the PTV. CONCLUSIONS: Large discrepancies between all the delineated target volumes were observed. There was an inverse relationship between the CTV volume and the margin between CTV and PTV, leading to less discrepancies in the PTV than is the CTV delineations. There was more spread in the sagittal and frontal planes due to CT pixel anisotropy, which suggests that radiation oncologists should delineate the target volumes not only in the transverse plane, but also in the sagittal and frontal planes to improve the delineation by allowing a consistency check.

Fetal dose reduction in head and neck radiotherapy of a pregnant woman.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A pregnant woman was referred for post-operative radiotherapy of a malignant schwannoma in the head and neck region. A best-treatment plan was devised in order to minimize the fetal dose. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The fetal dose resulting from radiological examinations was determined according to international protocols, that resulting from radiotherapy was calculated according to Recommendation 36 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group. Pre-treatment dosimetry was performed with an anthropomorphic phantom. Several alternative treatment plans were evaluated. The use of a multileaf collimator (MLC) and a virtual wedge (VW) was compared to cerrobend blocks (CB) and physical wedge (PW). In-vivo dosimetry was performed using a vaginal probe containing thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). RESULTS: The total fetal dose resulting from diagnostic and radiotherapy procedures was estimated to be 36 mGy. The technique based on MLC and VW was elected for patient treatment. Measurements for this configuration resulted in afetal dose reduction of 82%. The shielding of the patient's abdomen further reduced the fetal dose by 42%. CONCLUSION: The use of VW and MLC for the treatment of a pregnant woman is highly recommended. Each case should be individually studied with pre-treatment and in-vivo dosimetry.

3D dose reconstruction for narrow beams using ion chamber array measurements.

3D dose reconstruction is a verification of the delivered absorbed dose. Our aim was to describe and evaluate a 3D dose reconstruction method applied to phantoms in the context of narrow beams. A solid water phantom and a phantom containing a bone-equivalent material were irradiated on a 6 MV linac. The transmitted dose was measured by using one array of a 2D ion chamber detector. The dose reconstruction was obtained by an iterative algorithm. A phantom set-up error and organ interfraction motion were simulated to test the algorithm sensitivity. In all configurations convergence was obtained within three iterations. A local reconstructed dose agreement of at least 3% / 3mm with respect to the planned dose was obtained, except in a few points of the penumbra. The reconstructed primary fluences were consistent with the planned ones, which validates the whole reconstruction process. The results validate our method in a simple geometry and for narrow beams. The method is sensitive to a set-up error of a heterogeneous phantom and interfraction heterogeneous organ motion.

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).