Dosimetric effect on pediatric conformal treatment plans using dynamic jaw with Tomotherapy HDA

AAPM Task Group Report 306: Quality control and assurance for tomotherapy: An update to Task Group Report 148

Since the publication of AAPM Task Group (TG) 148 on quality assurance (QA) for helical tomotherapy, there have been many new developments on the tomotherapy platform involving treatment delivery, on-board imaging options, motion management, and treatment planning systems (TPSs). In response to a need for guidance on quality control (QC) and QA for these technologies, the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee commissioned TG 306 to review these changes and make recommendations related to these technology updates. The specific objectives of this TG were (1) to update, as needed, recommendations on tolerance limits, frequencies and QC/QA testing methodology in TG 148, (2) address the commissioning and necessary QA checks, as a supplement to Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPG) with respect to tomotherapy TPS and (3) to provide risk-based recommendations on the new technology implemented clinically and treatment delivery workflow. Detailed recommendations on QA tests and their tolerance levels are provided for dynamic jaws, binary multileaf collimators, and Synchrony motion management. A subset of TPS commissioning and QA checks in MPPG 5.a. applicable to tomotherapy are recommended. In addition, failure mode and effects analysis has been conducted among TG members to obtain multi-institutional analysis on tomotherapy-related failure modes and their effect ranking.

Comparison of Different Combinations of Irradiation Mode and Jaw Width in Helical Tomotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Purpose: To aid in the selection of a suitable combination of irradiation mode and jaw width in helical tomotherapy (HT) for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with NPC who underwent radiotherapy were retrospectively selected. Four plans using a jaw width of 2.5 or 5-cm in dynamic jaw (DJ) or fix jaw (FJ) modes for irradiation were designed (2.5DJ, 2.5FJ, 5.0DJ, and 5.0FJ). The dose parameters of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) of the plans were compared and analyzed, as well as the beam on time (BOT) and monitor unit (MU). The plans in each group were ranked by scoring the doses received by the OARs and the superity was assessed in combination with the planned BOT and MU.

Results: The prescribed dose coverage of PTV met the clinical requirements for all plans in the four groups. The groups using a 2.5-cm jaw width or a DJ mode provided better protection to most OARs, particularly for those at the longitudinal edges of the PTV (P < 0.05). The 2.5DJ group had the best ranking for OAR-dose, followed by the 2.5FJ and 5.0DJ groups with a same score. The BOT and MU of the groups using a 5.0-cm jaw width reduced nearly 45% comparing to those of the 2.5-cm jaw groups.

Conclusion: 2.5DJ has the best dose distribution, while 5.0DJ has satisfactory dose distribution and less BOT and MU that related to the leakage dose. Both 2.5DJ or 5DJ were recommended for HT treatment plan for NPC based on the center workload.