{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02076002814919071, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013722730471498945, 'mean_word_length': 5.08779443254818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A motion phantom study on helical tomotherapy: the dosimetric impacts of delivery technique and motion

Helical tomotherapy (HT) can potentially be used for lung cancer treatment including stereotactic radiosurgery because of its advanced image guidance and its ability to deliver highly conformal dose distributions. However, previous theoretical and simulation studies reported that the effect of respiratory motion on statically planned tomotherapy treatments may cause substantial differences between the calculated and actual delivered radiation isodose distribution, particularly when the treatment is hypofractionated. In order to determine the dosimetric effects of motion upon actual HT treatment delivery, phantom film dosimetry measurements were performed under static and moving conditions using a clinical HT treatment unit. The motion phantom system was constructed using a programmable motor, a base, a moving platform and a life size lung heterogeneity phantom with wood inserts representing lung tissue with a 3.0 cm diameter spherical tumour density equivalent insert. In order to determine the effects of different motion and tomotherapy delivery parameters, treatment plans were created using jaw sizes of 1.04 cm and 2.47 cm, with incremental gantry rotation periods between the minimum allowed (10 s) and the maximum allowed (60 s). The couch speed varied from 0.009 cm s−1 to 0.049 cm s−1, and delivered to a phantom under static and dynamic conditions with peak-to-peak motion amplitudes of 1.2 cm and 2 cm and periods of 3 and 5 s to simulate human respiratory motion of lung tumours. A cylindrical clinical target volume (CTV) was contoured to tightly enclose the tumour insert. 2.0 Gy was prescribed to 95% of the CTV. Two-dimensional dose was measured by a Kodak EDR2 film. Dynamic phantom doses were then quantitatively compared to static phantom doses in terms of axial dose profiles, cumulative dose volume histograms (DVH), percentage of CTV receiving the prescription dose and the minimum dose received by 95% of the CTV. The larger motion amplitude resulted in more under-dosing at the ends of the CTV in the axis of motion, and this effect was greater for the smaller jaw size plans. Due to the size of the penumbra, the 2.47 cm jaw plans provide adequate coverage for smaller amplitudes of motion, ±0.6 cm in our experiment, without adding any additional margin in the axis of motion to the treatment volume. The periodic heterogeneous patterns described by previous studies were not observed from the single fraction of the phantom measurement. Besides the jaw sizes, CTV dose coverage is not significantly dependent on machine and phantom motion periods. The lack of adverse synchronization patterns from both results validate that HT is a safe technique for treating moving target and hypofractionation.