5 resultados para Electric arc
em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center
Resumo:
The risk of second malignant neoplasms (SMNs) following prostate radiotherapy is a concern due to the large population of survivors and decreasing age at diagnosis. It is known that parallel-opposed beam proton therapy carries a lower risk than photon IMRT. However, a comparison of SMN risk following proton and photon arc therapies has not previously been reported. The purpose of this study was to predict the ratio of excess relative risk (RRR) of SMN incidence following proton arc therapy to that after volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Additionally, we investigated the impact of margin size and the effect of risk-minimized proton beam weighting on predicted RRR. Physician-approved treatment plans were created for both modalities for three patients. Therapeutic dose was obtained with differential dose-volume histograms from the treatment planning system, and stray dose was estimated from the literature or calculated with Monte Carlo simulations. Then, various risk models were applied to the total dose. Additional treatment plans were also investigated with varying margin size and risk-minimized proton beam weighting. The mean RRR ranged from 0.74 to 0.99, depending on risk model. The additional treatment plans revealed that the RRR remained approximately constant with varying margin size, and that the predicted RRR was reduced by 12% using a risk-minimized proton arc therapy planning technique. In conclusion, proton arc therapy was found to provide an advantage over VMAT in regard to predicted risk of SMN following prostate radiotherapy. This advantage was independent of margin size and was amplified with risk-optimized proton beam weighting.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Many persons in the U.S. gain weight during young adulthood, and the prevalence of obesity has been increasing among young adults. Although obesity and physical inactivity are generally recognized as risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD), the magnitude of their effect on risk may have been seriously underestimated due to failure to adequately handle the problem of cigarette smoking. Since cigarette smoking causes weight loss, physically inactive cigarette smokers may remain relatively lean because they smoke cigarettes. We hypothesize cigarette smoking modifies the association between weight gain during young adulthood and risk of coronary heart disease during middle age, and that the true effect of weight gain during young adulthood on risk of CHD can be assessed only in persons who have not smoked cigarettes. Specifically, we hypothesize that weight gain during young adulthood is positively associated with risk of CHD during middle-age in nonsmokers but that the association is much smaller or absent entirely among cigarette smokers. The purpose of this study was to test this hypothesis. The population for analysis was comprised of 1,934 middle-aged, employed men whose average age at the baseline examination was 48.7 years. Information collected at the baseline examinations in 1958 and 1959 included recalled weight at age 20, present weight, height, smoking status, and other CHD risk factors. To decrease the effect of intraindividual variation, the mean values of the 1958 and 1959 baseline examinations were used in analyses. Change in body mass index ($\Delta$BMI) during young adulthood was the primary exposure variable and was measured as BMI at baseline (kg/m$\sp2)$ minus BMI at age 20 (kg/m$\sp2).$ Proportional hazards regression analysis was used to generate relative risks of CHD mortality by category of $\Delta$BMI and cigarette smoking status after adjustment for age, family history of CVD, major organ system disease, BMI at age 20, and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Adjustment was not performed for systolic blood pressure or total serum cholesterol as these were regarded as intervening variables. Vital status was known for all men on the 25th anniversary of their baseline examinations. 705 deaths (including 319 CHD deaths) occurred over 40,136 person-years of experience. $\Delta$BMI was positively associated with risk of CHD mortality in never-smokers, but not in ever-smokers (p for interaction = 0.067). For never-smokers with $\Delta$BMI of stable, low gain, moderate gain, and high gain, adjusted relative risks were 1.00, 1.62, 1.61, and 2.78, respectively (p for trend = 0.010). For ever-smokers, with $\Delta$BMI of stable, low gain, moderate gain, and high gain, adjusted relative risks were 1.00, 0.74, 1.07, and 1.06, respectively (p for trend = 0.422). These results support the research hypothesis that cigarette smoking modifies the association between weight gain and CHD mortality. Current estimates of the magnitude of effect of obesity and physical inactivity on risk of coronary mortality may have been seriously underestimated due to inadequate handling of cigarette smoking. ^
Resumo:
Results from epidemiologic studies suggest that persons working in occupations with presumed electric and magnetic field (EMF) exposures are at increased risk of brain cancer. This study utilized data from a completed, population-based, interview case-control study of central nervous system (CNS) tumors and employment in the petrochemical industry to test the hypothesis that employment in EMF-related occupations increases CNS tumor risk. A total of 375 male residents of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Area, age 20 to 79, with primary neuroglial CNS tumors diagnosed during the period 1980-84 were identified. A population-based comparison group of 450 age, race and geographically matched males was selected. Occupational histories and potential risk factor data were collected via personal interviews with study subjects or their next-of-kin.^ Adjusted odds ratios were less than 1.0 for persons ever employed in an electrical occupation (OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.40-1.09) or whose usual occupation was electrical (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.33-1.73). Relative risk estimates did not increase significantly as time since first employment or duration of employment increased. Examination of CNS tumor risk by high (OR = 0.80), medium (OR = 0.88) and low (OR = 0.45) exposure categories for persons whose usual occupation was electrical did not indicate a dose-response pattern. In addition, the mean age of exposed cases was not significantly younger than that for unexposed cases. Analysis of risk by probability of exposure to EMFs showed non-significant elevations in the adjusted odds ratio for definite exposed workers defined by their usual occupation (OR = 1.78; 95% CI = 0.70-4.51) and ever/never employed status (OR = 1.54; 95% CI = 0.17-4.91).^ These findings suggest that employment in occupations with presumed EMF exposures does not increase CNS tumor risk as was suggested by previous investigations. The results of this study also do not support the EMF-tumor promotion hypothesis. ^
Resumo:
Validation of treatment plan quality and dose calculation accuracy is essential for new radiotherapy techniques, including volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT delivers intensity modulated radiotherapy treatments while simultaneously rotating the gantry, adding an additional level of complexity to both the dose calculation and delivery of VMAT treatments compared to static gantry IMRT. The purpose of this project was to compare two VMAT systems, Elekta VMAT and Varian RapidArc, to the current standard of care, IMRT, in terms of both treatment plan quality and dosimetric delivery accuracy using the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom. Clinically relevant treatment plans were created for the phantom using typical prescription and dose constraints for Elekta VMAT (planned with Pinnacle3 Smart Arc) and RapidArc and IMRT (both planned with Eclipse). The treatment plans were evaluated to determine if they were clinically comparable using several dosimetric criteria, including ability to meet dose objectives, hot spots, conformity index, and homogeneity index. The planned treatments were delivered to the phantom and absolute doses and relative dose distributions were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film, respectively. The measured and calculated doses of each treatment were compared to determine if they were clinically acceptable based upon RPC criteria of ±7% dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement. Gamma analysis was used to assess dosimetric accuracy, as well. All treatment plans were able to meet the dosimetric objectives set by the RPC and had similar hot spots in the normal tissue. The Elekta VMAT plan was more homogenous but less conformal than the RapidArc and IMRT plans. When comparing the measured and calculated doses, all plans met the RPC ±7%/4 mm criteria. The percent of points passing the gamma analysis for each treatment delivery was acceptable. Treatment plan quality of the Elekta VMAT, RapidArc and IMRT treatments were comparable for consistent dose prescriptions and constraints. Additionally, the dosimetric accuracy of the Elekta VMAT and RapidArc treatments was verified to be within acceptable tolerances.