Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by J. Van Egmond.
Physics in Medicine and Biology | 2010
A. Petoukhova; K. van Wingerden; R. Wiggenraad; P. van de Vaart; J. Van Egmond; E. Franken; J. van Santvoort
This study presents data for verification of the iPlan RT Monte Carlo (MC) dose algorithm (BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany). MC calculations were compared with pencil beam (PB) calculations and verification measurements in phantoms with lung-equivalent material, air cavities or bone-equivalent material to mimic head and neck and thorax and in an Alderson anthropomorphic phantom. Dosimetric accuracy of MC for the micro-multileaf collimator (MLC) simulation was tested in a homogeneous phantom. All measurements were performed using an ionization chamber and Kodak EDR2 films with Novalis 6 MV photon beams. Dose distributions measured with film and calculated with MC in the homogeneous phantom are in excellent agreement for oval, C and squiggle-shaped fields and for a clinical IMRT plan. For a field with completely closed MLC, MC is much closer to the experimental result than the PB calculations. For fields larger than the dimensions of the inhomogeneities the MC calculations show excellent agreement (within 3%/1 mm) with the experimental data. MC calculations in the anthropomorphic phantom show good agreement with measurements for conformal beam plans and reasonable agreement for dynamic conformal arc and IMRT plans. For 6 head and neck and 15 lung patients a comparison of the MC plan with the PB plan was performed. Our results demonstrate that MC is able to accurately predict the dose in the presence of inhomogeneities typical for head and neck and thorax regions with reasonable calculation times (5-20 min). Lateral electron transport was well reproduced in MC calculations. We are planning to implement MC calculations for head and neck and lung cancer patients.
Physics in Medicine and Biology | 2011
A. Petoukhova; J. Van Egmond; M. Eenink; R. Wiggenraad; J. van Santvoort
The aim of this work is to evaluate dosimetric accuracy of a new treatment modality, HybridArc, in iPlan RT Dose 4.5 (BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany) using a four-dimensional diode array (ArcCHECK, Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, USA). HybridArc is able to enhance dynamic conformal arcs with inversely planned elements. HybridArc plans for various sites (intracranial and extracranial) were constructed and after that these plans were recalculated for the ArcCHECK diode array with Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) dose algorithms in iPlan RT Dose. All measurements of these HybridArc plans were performed with 6 MV photon beams of a Novalis accelerator (BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany) using the ArcCHECK device without and with an insert containing an ionization chamber. Comparison of the absolute dose distributions measured and calculated in iPlan RT Dose with the MC algorithm at the cylinder of the ArcCHECK diode array for HybridArc plans gives good agreement, even for the 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement criteria. The PB calculations significantly differ from the ArcCHECK measurements so that the MC algorithm is found to be superior to the PB algorithm in the calculation of the HybridArc plans. One of the drawbacks of the PB calculations in iPlan RT Dose is the too large arc step size of 10°. Use of a finer angular resolution may improve the PB results significantly.
Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology | 2018
M. Mast; E. Kouwenhoven; J. Roos; S. van Geen; J. Van Egmond; J. van Santvoort; L. de Boer; M. Florijn; Y. Kalidien; N. Nobel; L. Rovers; W. van der Togt; S. De Vet; N. van der Voort van Zyp; F. Wenmakers; J. Van Wingerden; H. Ceha
Highlights • The workflow of inspiration breath-hold SBRT for liver metastases is described.• Inspiration breath-hold in liver SBRT is feasible for 95% of the patients.• An individual margin recipe for inspiration breath-hold liver SBRT is explained.• Margin reduction of 10 mm using inspiration breath-hold compared to free breathing.
Medical Physics | 2014
J. van Santvoort; M Van der Drift; J. Kuipers; M. Mast; J. Van Egmond; H. Struikmans
PURPOSE To find out whether tantalum surgical clips can be used for online position verification in treatment of the lumpectomy cavity (LC) in breast cancer patients. Tantalum is a high density metal that could be visible on Electronic Portal Images (EPIs) and be an affordable alternative to gold markers. Clips are considered more representative for the LC position than nearby bony structures. METHODS In twelve patients the surgeon had placed 2 to 5 tantalum clips in the LC. The AP and lateral fields used for portal imaging, were adapted. In doing so, both bony structures and tantalum clips were visible on EPIs. The following analyses were performed:1. Image degradation, with respect to delineating the CTV, of the axial CT slices by artefacts because of the tantalum clips was evaluated by a radiation oncologist;2. The visibility of the tantalum clips on the EPIs was evaluated by four radiation therapists (RTTs);3. Bony anatomy and tantalum clip matches were performed on the same images independently by two observers. RESULTS 1. Delineation of the CTV by the radiation oncologist was not hampered by CT image artefacts because of the clips.2. The mean score for visibility of the clips on the EPIs, analysed by the four RTTs, was 5.6 on a scale of 10 (range 3.9 - 8.0).3. In total 12 patients with 16 fractions each were analysed. The differences between clip match and bone match are significant with a mean vector length of 5.2 mm (SD 1.9 mm) for the difference. CONCLUSION Results of matches on tantalum clips as compared to matches on bony structures differ substantially. Therefore clip matches can result in smaller CTV to PTV margins than bone matches. Visibility of the clips on EPIs is sufficient, so they can be an alternative to gold markers.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2009
A. Petoukhova; R. Wiggenraad; P. van de Vaart; K. van Wingerden; J. Van Egmond; E. Franken; J. van Santvoort
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2018
M. Kouijzer; J. Kuipers; M. Buitelaar-Gallé; J. Van Egmond; H. Ceha; J. van Santvoort; M. Mast
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2018
A. Petoukhova; J. Nijst-Brouwers; K. van Wingerden; J. Van Egmond; T. Stam; A. Marinelli; J. Van der Sijp; Onno R. Guicherit; P. Koper; H. Struikmans
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2018
M. Buitelaar-Gallé; J. Van Egmond; J. van Santvoort; J. Roos; L. Versluis; S. De Vet; M. Van Hameren; T. Van Oorschot; R. Wiggenraad; J. Van Wingerden; M. Mast
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2017
E. Kouwenhoven; J. Van Egmond; J. Van Wingerden; M. De Goede; M. Mast; J. van Santvoort
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2017
M. Mast; E. Gagesteijn; T. Stam; N. Knotter; E. Kouwenhoven; A. Petoukhova; E. Coerkamp; J. Van der Steeg; J. Van Egmond; H. Struikmans