{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025915996425379804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002680965147453083, 'mean_word_length': 5.324858757062147, '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}}
Feasibility of concurrent treatment with the scanning ultrasound reflector linear array system (SURLAS) and the helical tomotherapy system

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of concurrent treatment with the scanning ultrasound reflector linear array system (SURLAS) and helical tomotherapy (HT) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods: The SURLAS was placed on a RANDO phantom simulating a patient with superficial or deep recurrent breast cancer. A megavoltage CT (MVCT) of the phantom with and without the SURLAS was obtained in the HT system. MVCT images with the SURLAS were obtained for two configurations: (1) with the SURLAS's long axis parallel and (2) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the phantom. The MVCT simulation data set was then transferred to a radiation therapy planning station. Organs at risk (OAR) were contoured including the lungs, heart, abdomen and spinal cord. The metallic parts of the SURLAS were contoured as well and constraints were assigned to completely or directionally block radiation through them. The MVCT simulation data set and regions of interest (ROI) files were subsequently transferred to the HT planning station. Several HT plans were obtained with optimization parameters that are usually used in the clinic. For comparison purposes, planning was also performed without the SURLAS on the phantom. Results: All plans with the SURLAS on the phantom showed adequate dose covering 95% of the planning target volume (PTV D95%), average dose and coefficient of variation of the planning target volume (PTV) dose distribution regardless of the SURLAS's orientation with respect to the RANDO phantom. Likewise, all OAR showed clinically acceptable dose values. Spatial dose distributions and dose-volume histogram (DVH) evaluation showed negligible plan degradation due to the presence of the SURLAS. Beam-on time varied depending on the selected optimization parameters. Conclusion: From the perspective of the radiation dosage, concurrent treatment with the SURLAS and HT IMRT is feasible as demonstrated by the obtained clinically acceptable treatment plans. In addition, proper orientation of the SURLAS may be of benefit in reducing dose to organs at risk in some cases.