MDCB Credits: 2.50
ARRT Credits: 1.50
Available Until: 8/31/2023
Non-Member Price: $87.50
Member Price: $50.00
Member PLUS Price: $50.00
Once you have exceeded your annual free credit allowance you will be prompted to pay a per-credit fee.
Courses purchased using your credit allowance are non-refundable and need to be completed before their expiration date
View your annual credit allowance here.
Author: Ian Gleeson, Bachelor
Cancer Research UK, RadNet Cambridge, Department of Medical Physics, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
Compare the robustness of wide tangents (WT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using different skin ﬂash approaches in breast and nodal radiotherapy. Ten patients treated with WT using 2-cm ﬂash were replanned with VMAT using no ﬂash (NF), manual 2-cm ﬂash (MF), and robust optimization (RO). Plan robustness was assessed for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) by recalculating on 5 deformed CT scans (SOM1-5), daily cone beam (CBCT), and by shifting the isocenter 5 mm. VMAT NF gave poor coverage of CTVp with its smallest change of −3.2% for V38Gy on CBCT. VMAT RO plans showed the least variations in target coverage loss compared to WT and VMAT MF which dropped as anatomical swelling increased. CTVp D0.5cc decreased on CBCT and increased most for VMAT MF plans (case max increase +3.3 Gy), whereas VMAT RO plans were relatively stable (case max increase +1.2 Gy). OAR dose changed little with anatomical changes (isocenter shifts more important with medial, posterior, and in- ferior increasing dose). Nodal coverage was superior for VMAT which led to the WT being less robust for coverage toward both geometric and anatomical uncertainties. All techniques except NF plans gave high levels of coverage under minor uncertainties. VMAT RO was highly robust for target coverage for anatomical changes. Manually editing control points on VMAT plans was time-consuming and less predictable. CBCT anatomical changes were modest resulting in small delivered dose changes. OAR dose changes were small with no signiﬁcant differences between techniques.
As of January 1, 2022, ARRT requires CE Credits for Directed Journal Readings to be based on the word count for each article. So, the number of CE Credits for each DJR article will vary for ARRT. For this article, the ARRT CE Credit will be 1.5 Credit. The MDCB CE Credits will remain at 2.5 Credits.