The background and purpose of this paper is to investigate adherence, exercise performance levels and associated factors in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients participating in a guided home-based prophylactic exercise program during and after treatment [swallowing sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (SW-IMRT)]. Fifty patients were included in the study. Adherence was defined as the percentage of patients who kept up exercising; exercise performance level was categorized as low: ≤1, moderate: 1–2, and high: ≥2 time(s) per day, on average. Associations between 6- and 12-week exercise performance levels and age, gender, tumour site and stage, treatment, intervention format (online or booklet), number of coaching sessions, and baseline HNC symptoms (EORTC-QLQ-H&N35) were investigated. Adherence rate at 6 weeks was 70% and decreased to 38% at 12 weeks. In addition, exercise performance levels decreased over time (during 6 weeks: 34% moderate and 26% high; during 12 weeks: 28% moderate and 18% high). The addition of chemotherapy to SW-IMRT [(C)SW-IMRT] significantly deteriorated exercise performance level. Adherence to a guided home-based prophylactic exercise program was high during (C)SW-IMRT, but dropped afterwards. Exercise performance level was negatively affected by chemotherapy in combination with SW-IMRT.
The objective of this study was to introduce a new iterative method to reconstruct multi leaf collimator (MLC) positions based on low resolution ionization detector array measurements and to evaluate its error detection performance. The iterative reconstruction method consists of a fluence model, a detector model and an optimizer. Expected detector response was calculated using a radiotherapy treatment plan in combination with the fluence model and detector model. MLC leaf positions were reconstructed by minimizing differences between expected and measured detector response. The iterative reconstruction method was evaluated for an Elekta SLi with 10.0 mm MLC leafs in combination with the COMPASS system and the MatriXX Evolution (IBA Dosimetry) detector with a spacing of 7.62 mm. The detector was positioned in such a way that each leaf pair of the MLC was aligned with one row of ionization chambers. Known leaf displacements were introduced in various field geometries ranging from −10.0 mm to 10.0 mm. Error detection performance was tested for MLC leaf position dependency relative to the detector position, gantry angle dependency, monitor unit dependency, and for ten clinical intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment beams. For one clinical head and neck IMRT treatment beam, influence of the iterative reconstruction method on existing 3D dose reconstruction artifacts was evaluated. The described iterative reconstruction method was capable of individual MLC leaf position reconstruction with millimeter accuracy, independent of the relative detector position within the range of clinically applied MU's for IMRT. Dose reconstruction artifacts in a clinical IMRT treatment beam were considerably reduced as compared to the current dose verification procedure. The iterative reconstruction method allows high accuracy 3D dose verification by including actual MLC leaf positions reconstructed from low resolution 2D measurements.
LINK
Background and purpose: Treatment plan verification of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is generally performed with the gamma index (GI) evaluation method, which is difficult to extrapolate to clinical implications. Incorporating Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) information can compensate for this. The aim of this study was to evaluate DVH-based treatment plan verification in addition to the GI evaluation method for head and neck IMRT.Materials and methods: Dose verifications of 700 subsequent head and neck cancer IMRT treatment plans were categorised according to gamma and DVH-based action levels. Fractionation dependent absolute dose limits were chosen. The results of the gamma- and DVH-based evaluations were compared to the decision of the medical physicist and/or radiation oncologist for plan acceptance.Results: Nearly all treatment plans (99.7%) were accepted for treatment according to the GI evaluation combined with DVH-based verification. Two treatment plans were re-planned according to DVH-based verification, which would have been accepted using the evaluation alone. DVH-based verification increased insight into dose delivery to patient specific structures increasing confidence that the treatment plans were clinically acceptable. Moreover, DVH-based action levels clearly distinguished the role of the medical physicist and radiation oncologist within the Quality Assurance (QA) procedure.Conclusions: DVH-based treatment plan verification complements the GI evaluation method improving head and neck IMRT-QA.
