Dataset Information

Results of a 10-year survey of workload for 10 treatment vaults at a high-throughput comprehensive cancer center.

ABSTRACT: The workload for shielding purposes of modern linear accelerators (linacs) consists of primary and scatter radiation which depends on the dose delivered to isocenter (cGy) and leakage radiation which depends on the monitor units (MUs). In this study, we report on the workload for 10 treatment vaults in terms of dose to isocenter (cGy), monitor units delivered (MUs), number of treatment sessions (Txs), as well as, use factors (U) and modulation factors (CI) for different treatment techniques. The survey was performed for the years between 2006 and 2015 and included 16 treatment machines which represent different generations of Varian linear accelerators (6EX, 600C, 2100C, 2100EX, and TrueBeam) operating at different electron and x-ray energies (6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 MeV electrons and, 6 and 15 MV x-rays). An institutional review board (IRB) approval was acquired to perform this study. Data regarding patient workload, dose to isocenter, number of monitor units delivered, beam energies, gantry angles, and treatment techniques were exported from an ARIA treatment management system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, Ca.) into Excel spreadsheets and data analysis was performed in Matlab. The average (± std-dev) number of treatment sessions, dose to isocenter, and number of monitor units delivered per week per machine in 2006 was 119 ± 39 Txs, (300 ± 116) × 102 cGys, and (78 ± 28) × 103 MUs respectively. In contrast, the workload in 2015 was 112 ± 40 Txs, (337 ± 124) × 102 cGys, and (111 ± 46) × 103 MUs. 60% of the workload (cGy) was delivered using 6 MV and 30% using 15 MV while the remaining 10% was delivered using electron beams. The modulation factors (MU/cGy) for IMRT and VMAT were 5.0 (± 3.4) and 4.6 (± 1.6) respectively. Use factors using 90° gantry angle intervals were equally distributed (~0.25) but varied considerably among different treatment techniques. The workload, in terms of dose to isocenter (cGy) and subsequently monitor units (MUs), has been steadily increasing over the past decade. This increase can be attributed to increased use of high dose hypo-fractionated regimens (SBRT, SRS) and the increase in use of IMRT and VMAT, which require higher MUs per cGy as compared to more conventional treatment (3DCRT). Meanwhile, the patient workload in terms of treatment sessions per week remained relatively constant. The findings of this report show that variables used for shielding purposes still fall within the recommendation of NCRP Report 151.

SUBMITTER: Saleh ZH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5689849 | biostudies-other | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Results of a 10-year survey of workload for 10 treatment vaults at a high-throughput comprehensive cancer center.

Saleh Ziad H ZH Jeong Jeho J Quinn Brian B Mechalakos James J St Germain Jean J Dauer Lawrence T LT

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20170419 3

The workload for shielding purposes of modern linear accelerators (linacs) consists of primary and scatter radiation which depends on the dose delivered to isocenter (cGy) and leakage radiation which depends on the monitor units (MUs). In this study, we report on the workload for 10 treatment vaults in terms of dose to isocenter (cGy), monitor units delivered (MUs), number of treatment sessions (Txs), as well as, use factors (U) and modulation factors (CI) for different treatment techniques. The ...[more]

PMID: 28422421

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBurn patients often have functional problems due to joint scar contracture. Patients suffering from such contracture often experience considerable limitations in daily life. Therefore, surgical treatment is often necessary. Skin grafts, especially full-thickness skin grafts and flaps remain the most commonly used surgical methods in clinical practice. However, there are no clear guidelines stating which technique is the most effective treatment. Herein, we conducted a retrospective cohort study over 10 years of experience at a single center to investigate whether flaps or FTSGs exhibit a better long-term effect.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of patients with joint burn scar contracture and collected data related to patient demographic profiles, and detailed descriptions of the scars, surgical procedures, and follow-up were collected. We performed follow-up evaluation of three aspects: adverse events (recontracture, ache, and pruritus), satisfaction scores for function and aesthetics, and scar quality (Vancouver Scar Scale score).ResultsFollow-up results 1 year after surgery from 88 patients were analyzed. In total, 4 (10%) patients in the flap group and 13 (27.1%) patients in the FTSG group had recontracture; the incidence of recontracture was lower in the flap group than in the FTSG group (P=0.043). The functional satisfaction score of the flap group was higher than that of the FTSG group (P=0.027). Moreover, follow-up results 5 year after surgery for 47 patients were analyzed. In total, 1 (4.8%) patient in the flap group and 7 (26.9%) patients in the FTSG group had recontracture; the incidence of recontracture was significantly lower in the flap group than in the FTSG group (P=0.044). The functional satisfaction score in the flap group was higher than that of the FTSG group (P=0.041). In this study, no significant differences in scar quality were observed between the two groups.ConclusionsIf conditions permit, the application of different types of flaps may represent a better choice than FTSGs in terms of reducing the recontracture rate and improving joint function.

Project description:Purpose/objectivesAlthough ample intermediate-term prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) outcomes have been reported, 10-year results remain relatively sparse.Materials/methodsEighteen institutions enrolled 259 low- and intermediate-risk patients. Median follow-up is 5.5 years, with 66 patients followed ≥ 10 years. This SBRT regimen specifically emulated an existing HDR brachytherapy dose schedule and isodose morphology, prescribed to 38 Gy/4 fractions, delivered daily by robotic SBRT, mandating > 150% dose escalation in the peripheral zone. Androgen deprivation therapy was not allowed, and a hydrogel spacer was not available at that time.ResultsMedian pre-SBRT PSA 5.12 ng/mL decreased to 0.1 ng/mL by 3.5 years, with further decrease to a nadir of < 0.1 ng/mL by 7 years, maintained through 10 years. Ten-year freedom from biochemical recurrence measured 100% for low-risk, 84.3% for favorable intermediate risk (FIR), and 68.4% for unfavorable intermediate (UIR) cases. Multivariable analysis revealed that the UIR group bifurcated into two distinct prognostic subgroups. Those so classified by having Gleason score 4 + 3 and/or clinical stage T2 (versus T1b/T1c) had a significantly poorer 10 year freedom from biochemical recurrence rate, 54.8% if either or both factors were present, while UIR patients without these specific factors had a 94.4% 10-year freedom from biochemical recurrence rate. The cumulative incidence of grade 2 GU toxicity modestly increased over time - 16.3% at 5 years increased to 19.2% at 10 years-- while the incidence of grade 3+ GU and GI toxicity remained low and stable to 10 years - 2.6% and 0%, respectively. The grade 2 GI toxicity incidence also remained low and stable to 10 years - 4.1% with no further events after year 5.ConclusionThis HDR-like SBRT regimen prescribing 38 Gy/4 fractions but delivering much higher intraprostatic doses on a daily basis is safe and effective. This treatment achieves a median PSA nadir of <0.1 ng/mL and provides high long-term disease control rates without ADT except for a subgroup of unfavorable intermediate-risk patients.

Dataset Information

Results of a 10-year survey of workload for 10 treatment vaults at a high-throughput comprehensive cancer center.

Publications

Results of a 10-year survey of workload for 10 treatment vaults at a high-throughput comprehensive cancer center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets