Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Radiological Physics and Technology
Published in: Radiological Physics and Technology 3/2017

01-09-2017

Evaluation of administered dose using portal images in craniospinal irradiation of pediatric patients

Authors: Carina Marques Coelho, Raquel Calçada, Sofia Rodrigues, Juan Antonio Barragán, Ana Cravo Sá, Ana Paula Macedo, Maria de Fátima Monsanto

Published in: Radiological Physics and Technology | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the administered dose based on portal imaging in craniospinal pediatric irradiation by evaluating cases in which portal images did or did not account for the total administered dose. We also intended to calculate the mean increase in total administered dose. Data were collected from General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón; we evaluated the total dose administered, total dose planned, number of portal images per treatment and corresponding monitor units of two different groups: one in which the dose from portal images is deducted from the total administered dose (D), and another in which it was not (N). We used descriptive statistics to analyze the collected data, including the mean and respective standard deviation. We used the Shapiro–Wilk and Spearman rank correlation coefficient tests and estimated the linear regression coefficients. Patients in group D received a mean dose of 29.00 ± 10.28 cGy based on the verification portal images, a quantity that was deducted from the planned dose to match the total administered dose. Patients in group N received a mean dose of 41.50 ± 30.53 cGy, which was not deducted from the planned dose, evidencing a mean increase of 41.50 ± 30.55 cGy over the total administered dose. The acquisition of the set-up verification portal images, without their inclusion in the total administered dose, reflects an average increase in total dose for craniospinal irradiation of pediatric patients. Subtraction of the monitor units used to acquire the verification images is recommended.
Literature
1.
Kun LE, Beltran C. Radiation therapy for children: evolving technologies in the era of ALARA. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39(Suppl 1):S65–70.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Stokkevåg CH, Engeseth GM, Ytre-Hauge KS, Röhrich D, Odland OH, Muren LP, et al. Estimated risk of radiation-induced cancer following paediatric cranio-spinal irradiation with electron, photon and proton therapy. Acta Oncol. 2014;53:1048–57.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zaghloul MS, Eldebawy E, Attalah E, Ahmed S, Nazmy M, Anin HA. Supine craniospinal irradiation in children: patient position modification, dose uniformity and early adverse effects. Gulf J Oncolog. 2012;11:7–15.
4.
Munshi A, Jalali R. A simple technique of supine craniospinal irradiation. Med Dosim. 2008;33(1):1–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
McMahon RL, Larrier NA, Wu QJ. An image-guided technique for planning and verification of supine craniospinal irradiation. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011;12(2):184–90.CrossRef
6.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1993). NCRP REPORT No. 116: Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation.
7.
Braunstein S, Nakamura JL. Radiotherapy-induced malignancies: review of clinical features, pathobiology, and evolving approaches for mitigating risk. Front Oncol. 2013;3(73):1–15.
8.
Kudchadker RJ, Chang EL, Bryan F, Maor MH, Famiglietti R. An evaluation of radiation exposure from portal films taken during definitive course of pediatric radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(4):1229–35.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Olch AJ, Geurts M, Thomadsen B, Famiglietti R, Chang EL. Portal imaging practice patterns of children’s oncology group institutions: dosimetric assessment and recommendations for minimizing unnecessary exposure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67(2):594–600.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Thorp N. Basic principles of paediatric radiotherapy. Clin Oncol. 2013;25(1):3–10.CrossRef
11.
Tubiana M. Can we reduce the incidence of second primary malignancies occurring after radiotherapy? A critical review. Radiother Oncol. 2009;91(1):4–15.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Christopherson KM, Rotondo RL, Bradley JA, Pincus DW, Wynn TT, Fort JA, et al. Late toxicity following craniospinal radiation for early-stage medulloblastoma. Acta Oncol. 2014;53:471–80.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Palmer SL, Armstrong C, Onar-Thomas A, Wu S, Wallace D, Bonner MJ. Processing speed, attention, and working memory after treatment for medulloblastoma: an international, prospective, and longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(28):3494–500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
15.
Ding GX, Munro P. Radiation exposure to patients from image guidance procedures and techniques to reduce the imaging dose. Radiother Oncol. 2013;108:91–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
18.
Zijtveld MV, Dirkx M, Breuers M, Boer HD, Heijmen B. Portal dose image prediction for in vivo treatment verification completely based on EPID measurements. Med Phys. 2009;36(3):946–52.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Murphy MJ, Balter J, Balter S, BenComo JA Jr, Das IJ, Jiang SB, et al. The management of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 75. Med Phys. 2007;34(10):4041–63.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Elmpt WV, McDermott L, Nijsten S, Wendling M, Lambin P, Mijnheer B. A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry. Radiother Oncol. 2008;88(3):289–309.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Hatherly KE, Educ GD, Smylie JC, Rodger A, Dally MJ, Davis SR, et al. A double exposed portal image comparison between electronic portal imaging hard copies and port films in radiation therapy treatment setup confirmation to determine its clinical application in a radiotherapy center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49(1):191–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Herman MG, Kruse JJ, Hagness CR. Guide to clinical use of electronic portal imaging. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2000;1(2):38–57.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Cherry P, Duxbury A, editors. Practical radiotherapy: physics and equipment. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell: United Kingdom; 2009.
25.
Dawson LA, Sharpe MB. Image-guided radiotherapy: rationale, benefits, and limitations. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:848–58.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Jones LW. Port film dosage in radiation therapy. Radiol Technol. 1991;62(5):362–8.PubMed
27.
Podgorsak EB, editor. Radiation oncology physics: a handbook for teachers and students. Vienna: IAEA; 2005.
28.
Mayles P, Nahum A, Rosenwald JC (eds) Handbook of radiotherapy physics: theory and practice. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC; 2007.
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of administered dose using portal images in craniospinal irradiation of pediatric patients
Authors
Carina Marques Coelho
Raquel Calçada
Sofia Rodrigues
Juan Antonio Barragán
Ana Cravo Sá
Ana Paula Macedo
Maria de Fátima Monsanto
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Radiological Physics and Technology / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1865-0333
Electronic ISSN: 1865-0341
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0395-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Radiological Physics and Technology 3/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Independent dose verification for brain stereotactic radiotherapy using different add-on micro multi-leaf collimators

OriginalPaper

Mass attenuation coefficient of tannin-added Rhizophora spp. particleboards at 16.59–25.56 keV photons, and 137Cs and 60Co gamma energies

OriginalPaper

Effective luminance deterioration of medical liquid crystal displays in clinical use

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of pre-surgical models for uterine surgery by use of three-dimensional printing and mold casting

OriginalPaper

A Web-based searchable system to confirm magnetic resonance compatibility of implantable medical devices in Japan: a preliminary study

OriginalPaper

Optimal injection method for long-range computed tomography angiography