Analysis of peripheral doses for base of tongue treatment by linear accelerator and helical TomoTherapy IMRT

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics Vol. 11; no. 3; pp. 186 - 196
• Main Authors: Bennett, Brian Richard, Lamba, Michael A. S., Elson, Howard R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 2010; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Anthropomorphism; Datasets; Dosimetry; Head & neck cancer; Humans; intensity‐modulated radiation therapy; Organs at Risk; Particle Accelerators; peripheral dose; Phantoms, Imaging; radiation dosimetry; Radiation Oncology Physics; Radiation therapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - instrumentation; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; risk; Thermoluminescent Dosimetry; Thyroid gland; Tomography, Spiral Computed; Tongue Neoplasms - radiotherapy; whole‐body dose; United States > US; Ohio
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v11i3.3136

The purpose of this study was to compare the peripheral doses to various organs from a typical head and neck intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivered by linear accelerator (linac) and helical TomoTherapy.
Multiple human CT data sets were used to segment critical structures and organs at risk, fused and adjusted to an anthropomorphic phantom. Eighteen contours were designated for thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) placement. Following the RTOG IMRT Protocol 0522, treatment of the primary tumor and involved nodes (PTV70) and subclinical disease sites (PTV56) was planned utilizing IMRT to 70 Gy and 56 Gy. Clinically acceptable treatment plans were produced for linac and TomoTherapy treatments. TLDs were placed and each treatment plan was delivered to the anthropomorphic phantom four times.
Within 2.5 cm (one helical TomoTherapy field width) superior and inferior to the field edges, normal tissue doses were on average 45% lower using linear accelerator. Beyond 2.5 cm, the helical TomoTherapy normal tissue dose was an average of 52% lower. The majority of points proved to be statistically different using the Student's t‐test with p<0.05. Using one method of calculation, probability of a secondary malignancy was 5.88% for the linear accelerator and 4.08% for helical TomoTherapy.
Helical TomoTherapy delivers more dose than a linac immediately above and below the treatment field, contributing to the higher peripheral doses adjacent to the field. At distances beyond one field width (where leakage is dominant), helical TomoTherapy doses are lower than linear accelerator doses.
PACS number: 87.50.cm Dosimetry/exposure assessment