Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 18, Number 2, 2013

Treatment planning evaluation of sliding window and multiple static segments technique in intensity modulated radiotherapy

Khalid Iqbal, Muhammad Isa, Saeed Ahmad Buzdar, Kent Aallen Gifford, Muhammad. Afzal

Summary:

Background

The demand of improved dose conformity of the tumor has been increased in radiation therapy with the advent of recent imaging facilities and efficient computer technologies.

Aim

We compared the intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans delivered with the sliding window (SW IMRT) and step and shoot (SS IMRT) techniques.

Materials and methods

Thirteen patients were planned on 15 MV X-ray for five, seven, nine and thirteen beams direction making the dose constraints analogous. Eclipse treatment planning system with Helios inverse planning software, and Linear Accelerator Varian 2100 C/D with 120 multileaf collimators (MLCs) were used. Gamma analysis was applied to the data acquired with the MapCheck 2™ for different beam directions plan in the sliding window and step and shoot technique to meet the 95% pass criteria at 3%/3 mm. The plans were scrutinized using Dmean, Dmax, D1%, D95%, dose uniformity index (UI), dose conformity index (CI), dose homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MUs).

Results

Our data show comparable coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) for both the sliding window and step and shoot techniques. The volume of PTV receiving the prescription dose was 99.8 ± 0.05% and the volume of PTV receiving the maximum dose was 107.6 ± 2.5% in both techniques. Bladder and rectum maximum mean doses for the sliding window and step and shoot plans were 38.1 ± 2.6% and 42.9 ± 10.7%. Homogeneity index (HI) for both techniques was 0.12 ± 0.02 and 0.13 ± 0.02, uniformity index (UI) was 1.07 ± 0.02 and 108 ± 0.01 and conformity index at 98% isodose (CI 98%) was 0.96 ± 0.005 and 0.96 ± 0.005 for the sliding window and step and shoot techniques, respectively, and MUs were 10 ± 12% lower in the step and shoot compared to the sliding window technique.

Conclusion

All these factors indicate that coverage for PTV was nearly identical but dose to organs-at-risk (OARs) was lower in the step and shoot technique.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2013; 18(2) : 101-106


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2