J.J. Liao

SU-F-T-86: Electron Dosimetric Effects of Bolus and Lens Shielding in Treating Superficial Eye Lesions

PURPOSE Electron therapy for the treatment of ocular lymphomas requires the lens to be shielded to prevent secondary cataracts. This work evaluates the dosimetry under a suspended eyeshield with and without bolus for low energy electron fields. METHODS Film (GafChromic EBT3) dosimetry and relative output factors were measured for 6, 8, and 10 MeV electron energies. A customized 5 cm diameter circle electron orbital cutout was constructed for a 6×6 cm applicator with a lens shield, 1 cm diameter Cerrobend cylinder with 2.2 cm length, suspended from an XV film covering the open field. Relative output factors were measured using a Scanditronix electron diode in a solid water phantom. Depth dose profiles were collected for bolus thicknesses of 0, 3, and 5 mm in solid water at a source to surface distance (SSD) of 100 cm. These measurements were repeated in a Rando phantom. RESULTS At 5 mm, the approximate distance of the lens from the surface of the cornea, the estimated dose in solid water under the suspended lens shield was reduced to 16%, 14%, and 13% of the unblocked dose at the same depth, for electron energies of 6, 8, and 10 MeV, respectively. Applying bolus increased estimated doses under the block to 22% for 3-mm and 32% for 5-mm thicknesses for a 6 MeV incident electron beam. This effect is reduced for higher energies where the corresponding values were 15.5% and 18% for 3-mm and 5-mm for an 8 MeV electron beam. CONCLUSION The application of bolus to treat superficial eye lesions of the conjunctiva increases lens dose at a depth of 5-mm under the shielding block with decreasing electron energy. Careful selection of electron energy is needed to account for electron scatter under the lens shield with the application of bolus in order to prevent cataracts.

SU-E-T-365: Dosimetric Impact of Dental Amalgam CT Image Artifacts On IMRT and VMAT Head and Neck Plans

PURPOSE The presence of high density dental amalgam in patient CT image data sets causes dose calculation errors for head and neck (HN) treatment planning. This study assesses and compares dosimetric variations in IMRT and VMAT treatment plans due to dental artifacts. METHODS Sixteen HN patients with similar treatment sites (oropharynx), tumor volume and extensive dental artifacts were divided into two groups: IMRT (n=8, 6 to 9 beams) and VMAT (n=8, 2 arcs with 352° rotation). All cases were planned with the Pinnacle 9.2 treatment planning software using the collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm and a range of prescription dose from 60 to 72Gy. Two different treatment plans were produced, each based on one of two image sets: (a)uncorrected; (b)dental artifacts density overridden (set to 1.0g/cm3 ). Differences between the two treatment plans for each of the IMRT and VMAT techniques were quantified by the following dosimetric parameters: maximum point dose, maximum spinal cord and brainstem dose, mean left and right parotid dose, and PTV coverage (V95%Rx). Average differences generated for these dosimetric parameters were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. RESULTS The average absolute dose differences (plan a minus plan b) for the VMAT and IMRT techniques, respectively, caused by dental artifacts were: 2.2±3.3cGy vs. 37.6±57.5cGy (maximum point dose, P=0.15); 1.2±0.9cGy vs. 7.9±6.7cGy (maximum spinal cord dose, P=0.026); 2.2±2.4cGy vs. 12.1±13.0cGy (maximum brainstem dose, P=0.077); 0.9±1.1cGy vs. 4.1±3.5cGy (mean left parotid dose, P=0.038); 0.9±0.8cGy vs. 7.8±11.9cGy (mean right parotid dose, P=0.136); 0.021%±0.014% vs. 0.803%±1.44% (PTV coverage, P=0.17). CONCLUSION For the HN plans studied, dental artifacts demonstrated a greater dose calculation error for IMRT plans compared to VMAT plans. Rotational arcs appear on the average to compensate dose calculation errors induced by dental artifacts. Thus, compared to VMAT, density overrides for dental artifacts are more important when planning IMRT of HN.