Delivery efficiency of the two MLCs was compared in terms of beam delivery times, monitor units (MUs) per fraction, and the number of segments for each plan. For all plans, dosimetric verification was performed using the phantom to examine the relationship between dosimetric errors and the two leaf widths. For VMAT, single arc (VMAT 1) and double arc (VMAT 2) plans were established. To analyze the effects of the field and arc numbers, 9-field IMRT (9F-IMRT) and 13-field IMRT (13F-IMRT) plans were established for S&S_IMRT. Their dosimetric characteristics were compared in terms of the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for the planning target volume (PTV), the dose to organs at risk (OARs), and the dose-spillage volume. Step-and-shoot IMRT (S&S_IMRT) and VMAT treatment plans were designed with 2.5- and 5.0-mm MLC for both C-shape and LH&N phantoms. The authors employed two types of mock phantoms: large-sized head and neck (LH&N) and small-sized C-shape (C-shape) phantoms. 5 mm) on dosimetric parameters and delivery efficiencies of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck (H&N) cancers. The authors evaluated the effects of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf width (2.5 vs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |