Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H E Gaballa

Publications and source records attributed to H E Gaballa.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A comparison of three stereotactic radiotherapy techniques; ARCS vs. noncoplanar fixed fields vs. intensity modulation.

PURPOSE: Linac arc based stereotactic radiotherapy is being used with increasing frequency to treat brain tumors. This approach can be used for single or fractionated treatments, and is typically carried out with circular collimators which are optimal for small, spherical targets. Treatment planning using fixed noncoplanar beams or intensity-modulated beams may enhance the ability to conform to irregularly shaped and/or large tumors, especially when combined with stereotactic localization. We compare the dose conformity and normal brain dose characteristics of three stereotactic techniques for various nonspherical target shapes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three intracranial test targets were constructed using a 3D treatment planning system after a patient underwent CT simulation. The targets included an ellipsoid with major axis dimensions of 4.0, 2.0, and 2.0 cm, a hemisphere with a diameter of 4.0 cm, and an irregularly shaped patient tumor with a maximum dimension of 5.3 cm. The following stereotactic techniques were compared for each target: a) 5 arcs as used in traditional linac radiosurgery/radiotherapy (noncoplanar arcs [ARCS]), b) 6 fixed noncoplanar custom blocked fields (3D), c) intensity modulation using 6 noncoplanar beams and a mini-multileaf collimator (intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRTI). Dose volume histograms were performed for each target/technique combination. RESULTS: For the ellipsoid, dose conformity is similar for all three techniques and normal brain isodose distributions are more favorable with the ARCS plan. For the hemisphere and irregular tumor targets, dose conformity and high/low isodose normal brain volumes are more favorable with the IMRT technique. CONCLUSIONS: For the targets described above, the intensity-modulated technique results in improved dose conformity and decreased dose to nontarget brain in high and low isodose regions as compared to the standard noncoplanar arc technique or noncoplanar fixed fields for the hemisphere and tumor targets. Intensity-modulated treatment delivery may allow for an increase in the therapeutic ratio for treating stereotactically defined large and/or irregularly shaped intracranial targets.

Brain Neoplasms↗

Tissue compensation using dynamic collimation on a linear accelerator.

PURPOSE: The availability of computer-controlled collimators on some accelerators has led to techniques for dynamic beam modification, mainly to simulate beam wedge filters. This work addresses the practical aspects of dynamic tissue compensation in one dimension using available treatment-planning software. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data derived from the treatment-planning program is used with an iterative calculational routine to determine the monitor unit settings needed for the collimator-controlling computer. The method was first tested by simulating a 60 degrees physical wedge. Further studies were carried out on a specially fabricated plastic phantom that modeled the sagittal contour of the upper torso, neck, and lower head regions. RESULTS: Dynamic wedge point doses generated by the planning program agreed within 1% with the values directly measured in a polystyrene phantom. In the patient phantom, dynamic collimation achieved calculated dose uniformity within 0.5% in a reference plane near the phantom midline. A comparison of computer-generated and measured point doses in this case showed agreement within 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic collimation can provide effective compensation for contours that vary primarily along one direction. A conventional treatment-planning program can be used to plan dynamic collimation and deliver a prescribed dose with reliable accuracy.

Models, Anatomic↗