Background: In linear accelerators, the treatment field’s uniform intensity is achieved by including a flattening filter in the beam. However, to produce more conformal dose distributions, contemporary radiotherapy p...Background: In linear accelerators, the treatment field’s uniform intensity is achieved by including a flattening filter in the beam. However, to produce more conformal dose distributions, contemporary radiotherapy practice now frequently uses fluence and aperture modifying techniques, such as volumetric modulated arc therapy. In these circumstances, the flattening filter in the beam manufacturing process is no longer required. It is therefore necessary to compare the monitor units of 6 MV and flattening filter free plans and how it influences the gamma pass rates to determine which is best for treating cervical cancer with pelvic lymph node metastasis. Methods: VMAT plans for fifteen patients with cervical cancer with pathological pelvic lymph node metastasis were included in this study. Each patient had two VMAT plans using conventional 6 MV beam with flattening filter and one with flattening filter free beam (FFF). The VMAT plans were made using two arcs, and then recalculated to give the planned dose distribution to the detectors in a Delta4 phantom. The VMAT plans were irradiated on the Delta4 phantom using an Elekta linear accelerator (6 MV). Results: The mean monitor unit for the 6 MV plans was 506.3 MU and a standard deviation of 48.6 while that of the FFF plans had a mean MU of 701.5 with a standard deviation of 87.6. The total monitor units (MUs) for the FFF plans were significantly greater than the 6 MV plans (p = 6.1 × 10<sup>-5</sup>). Conclusion: Flattening filter free (FFF) plans require more numbers of monitor units in comparison to conventional 6 MV filtered beams for external radiation of cervical cancer with pelvic lymph nodes involvement.展开更多
文摘Background: In linear accelerators, the treatment field’s uniform intensity is achieved by including a flattening filter in the beam. However, to produce more conformal dose distributions, contemporary radiotherapy practice now frequently uses fluence and aperture modifying techniques, such as volumetric modulated arc therapy. In these circumstances, the flattening filter in the beam manufacturing process is no longer required. It is therefore necessary to compare the monitor units of 6 MV and flattening filter free plans and how it influences the gamma pass rates to determine which is best for treating cervical cancer with pelvic lymph node metastasis. Methods: VMAT plans for fifteen patients with cervical cancer with pathological pelvic lymph node metastasis were included in this study. Each patient had two VMAT plans using conventional 6 MV beam with flattening filter and one with flattening filter free beam (FFF). The VMAT plans were made using two arcs, and then recalculated to give the planned dose distribution to the detectors in a Delta4 phantom. The VMAT plans were irradiated on the Delta4 phantom using an Elekta linear accelerator (6 MV). Results: The mean monitor unit for the 6 MV plans was 506.3 MU and a standard deviation of 48.6 while that of the FFF plans had a mean MU of 701.5 with a standard deviation of 87.6. The total monitor units (MUs) for the FFF plans were significantly greater than the 6 MV plans (p = 6.1 × 10<sup>-5</sup>). Conclusion: Flattening filter free (FFF) plans require more numbers of monitor units in comparison to conventional 6 MV filtered beams for external radiation of cervical cancer with pelvic lymph nodes involvement.
