Clinical Impact of Couch Top and Rails on IMRT and Arc Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical impact of the Varian Exact Couch on dose and volume coverage to targets and critical structures and tumor control probability (TCP) for 6-MV IMRT and Arc Therapy. Methods: Five clinical prostate patients were planned with both, 6-MV 8-field IMRT and 6-MV 2-field RapidArc using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). These plans neglected treatment couch attenuation, as is standard clinical practice. Dose distributions were then recalculated in Eclipse with the inclusion of the Varian Exact Couch (imaging couch top) and the rails in varying configurations. The changes in dose and coverage were evaluated using the DVHs from each plan iteration. We used a tumor control probability (TCP) model to calculate losses in tumor control resulting from not accounting for the couch top and rails. We also verified dose measurements in a phantom. Results: Failure to account for the treatment couch and rails resulted in clinically unacceptable dose and volume coverage losses to the target for both IMRT and RapidArc. The couch caused average dose losses (relative to plans that ignored the couch) to the prostate of 4.2% and 2.0% for IMRT with the rails out and in, respectively, and 3.2% and 2.9% for RapidArc with the rails out and in, respectively. On average, the percentage of the target covered by the prescribed dose dropped to 35% and 84% for IMRT (rails out and in, respectively) and to 18% and 17% for RapidArc (rails out and in, respectively). The TCP was also reduced by as much as 10.5% (6.3% on average). Dose and volume coverage losses for IMRT plans were primarily due to the rails, while the imaging couch top contributed most to losses for RapidArc. Both the couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage losses that can render plans clinically unacceptable. A follow-up study we performed found that the less attenuating unipanel mesh couch top available with the Varian Exact couch does not cause a clinically impactful loss of dose or coverage for IMRT but still causes an unacceptable loss for RapidArc. Conclusions: Both the imaging couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage loss to a degree that, if included, would prevent the plan from meeting clinical planning criteria. Therefore, the imaging and mesh couch tops and rails should be accounted for in Arc Therapy and the imaging couch and rails only in IMRT treatment planning.

The Elegant Simplicity of Family Preservation Practice Legecies and Lessons

An earlier version of this manuscript was prepared for the Chapin Hall invitational seminar on family preservation, The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, September 16 & 17, 1999. The author wishes to acknowledge the comments and helpful suggestions of seminar participants-Jacqueline McCroskey, Martha Shirk, Fran Jacobs, John Schuerman, Lee Schorr, Charlotte Booth, Kristi Nelson, Susan Kelly, Frank Farrow, and Susan Notkin. These comments, as indeed many of their prior contributions, have had a seminal effect on my thinking about family preservation services over the years. Clark Peters and other Chapin Hall staff deserve special thanks for creating the conditions necessary to produce a lively and productive discussion. As always, Harold Richman, Executive Director of Chapin Hall, and Hermon Dunlap, Smith Professor at the School of Social Service Administration of the University of Chicago, as seminar convenor combined perfectly the skills of gracious host and incisive critic. We in the child welfare field are in his debt for continually raising the level of discourse in our field. In the end, as it should be, the thoughts and opinions in the following paper are wholly my own.