Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:47:23.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The air gap between bolus and skin affects dose distribution in helical and direct tomotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2020

Hiroaki Akasaka Open the ORCID record for Hiroaki Akasaka [Opens in a new window] ,
Yuya Oki ,
Kazufusa Mizonobe ,
Kazuyuki Uehara ,
Hiroshi Mayahara ,
Aya Harada ,
Naoki Hashimoto ,
Keiji Kitatani ,
Tomonori Yabuuchi  and
Takeaki Ishihara
...Show all authors
Hiroaki Akasaka*
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Yuya Oki
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Kazufusa Mizonobe
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Kazuyuki Uehara
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Hiroshi Mayahara
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Aya Harada
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Naoki Hashimoto
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Keiji Kitatani
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Tomonori Yabuuchi
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Takeaki Ishihara
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Hospital, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Kazuma Iwashita
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Daisuke Miyawaki
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Hospital, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Naritoshi Mukumoto
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Hospital, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Ai Nakaoka
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Ryohei Sasaki
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Hospital, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
*
Author for correspondence: Hiroaki Akasaka, Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, Chuo-ku Kobe, Hyogo650-0046, Japan. Tel: +81 78 304 4100. Fax: +81 78 304 0041. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

To modify the final dose delivered to superficial tissues and to modulate dose distribution near irradiated surface, different boluses are used. Air gaps often form under the bolus affecting dose distribution. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of an air gap under the bolus radiation on dose delivery.

Materials and methods:

To evaluate the impact of the air gap, both helical tomotherapy (HT) and direct tomotherapy (DT) were performed in a simulation study.

Results:

The maximum dose to bolus in DT plans was bigger than that used in HT plans. The maximum dose delivered to the bolus depended on the air gap size. However, the maximum dose to bolus in all HT plans was within the acceptable value range. Acceptable value was set to up to 107% of the prescription dose. In the simulation performed in this study, the acceptable air gap under bolus was up to 15 mm and below 5 mm in HT and DT plans, respectively.

Conclusions:

HT technique is a good choice, but DT technique can be also used if the bolus position can be reproduced accurately. Thus, the reproducibility of the bolus position between planning and treatment is very important.

Keywords

air gapbolusIMRTradiotherapytomotherapyVMAT
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 294 - 299
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kassae, A, Bloch, P, Yorke, E, Altsculer, MD, Rosenthal, DI. Beam spoilers versus bolus for 6MV photon treatment of head and neck cancers. Med Dosim 2000; 25: 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, JCH, Coia, LR, Aziz, D, Stafford, PM. Dose to superficial node for patients with head and neck cancer treated with 6MV and 60 Co photons. Radiother Oncol 1991; 21 (4): 257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niroomand-Rad, A, Javedan, K, Rodgers, JE, Harter, KW. Effects of beam spoiler on radiation dose for head and neck irradiation with 10MV photon beam. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 37 (4): 935–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, EE, Michalet-Lorenz, M, Taylor, ME. Use of a Lucite beam spoiler for high-energy breast irradiation. Med Dosim 1995; 20 (Summer (2)): 89–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lief, EP, Hunt, MA, Hong, LX, Amols, HI. Radiation therapy of large intact breasts using a beam spoiler or photons with mixed energies. Med Dosim 2007; 32: 246–253.Google ScholarPubMed
Wittych, J, Kukołowicz, P. Effect of beam spoiler on radiation dose in the build-up region for 6-MV X-ray. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2003; 8 (1): 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sroka, M, Reguła, J, Łobodziec, W. The influence of the bolus-surface distance on the dose distribution in the build-up region. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2010; 15 (6): 161–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, Y, Villarreal-Barajas, EJ, Udowicz, M et al. Clinical and dosimetric implications of air gaps between bolus and skin surface during radiation therapy. J Cancer Ther 2013; 4: 1251–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzi, L, Dinshaw, KA, Shrivastava, SK et al. A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2008; 89: 180–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lian, J, Mackenzie, M, Joseph, K et al. Assessment of extended field radiotherapy for stage IIIC endometrial cancer using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 935–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsieh, CH, Wie, MC, Lee, H-L et al. Whole pelvic helical tomotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: technical implementation of IMRT with helical tomotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2009; 4: 62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marnitz, S, Koehler, C, Burova, E et al. Helical tomotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost after laparoscopic staging in patients with cervical cancer: analysis of feasibility and early toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 2012; 82: e137–e143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vyas, V, Palmer, L, Mudge, R et al. Bolus for megavoltage photon and electron radiation therapy. Med Dosim 2013; 38 (3): 268–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ordonez-Sanz, C, Bowles, S, Hirst, A, MacDougall, ND. A single plan solution to chest wall radiotherapy with bolus? Br J Radiol 2014: 87 (1037): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aspradakis, MM, Morrison, RH, Richmond, DN, Steele, A. Experimental verification of convolution/superposition photon dose calculations for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48 (17): 2873–2893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mrozowska, M, Kukołowicz, P. Relationships between various indices of doses distribution homogeneity. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2015; 20 (4): 278–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luan, S, Wang, C, Chen, DZ et al. A new MLC segmentation algorithm/software for step-and-shoot IMRT delivery. Med Phys 2004; 31: 695–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jabbari, K. Review of fast Monte Carlo codes for dose calculation in treatment planning. J Med Signals Sens 2011; 1: 73–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knöös, T, Kristensen, I, Nilsson, P. Volumetric and dosimetric evaluation of radiation treatment plans: radiation conformity index. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42: 1169–1176.Google ScholarPubMed
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, Recording, And Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity- Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT): ICRU Report 83. Bethesda, USA: ICRU Publications, 2010.Google Scholar
Salimi, M, Abi, KST, Nedaie, HA et al. Assessment and comparison of homogeneity and conformity indexes in step-and-shoot and compensator-based Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3D CRT) in prostate cancer. J Med Signals Sens 2017; 7 (2): 102–107.Google ScholarPubMed
Teoh, M, Clark, CH, Wood, K, Whitaker, S, Nisbet, A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol 2011; 84: 967–996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ost, P, Speleers, B, De Meerleer, G et al. Volumetric arctherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy for primaryprostate radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic lesion with 6 and 18 MV: a planning comparison study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79: 920–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, R, Nichol, AM, Vollans, E et al. A comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy for frontal and temporal high-grade gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76 (4): 1177–1184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Franco, R, Sammarco, E, Calvanese, MG et al. Preventing the acute skin side effects in patients treated with radiotherapy for breast cancer: the use of corneometry in order to evaluate the protective effect of moisturizing creams. Radiat Oncol 2013; 8: 57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed