skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-668: Irradiating Mouse Brain with a Clinical Linear Accelerator

Abstract

Purpose: To design and construct a “mouse jig” device that would allow for irradiation of the mouse brain with a clinical Varian 6 MeV Linear Accelerator. This device must serve as a head immobilizer, gaseous anesthesia delivery, and radiation bolus concurrently. Methods: The mouse jig was machined out of nylon given that it is inexpensive, easy to machine, and has similar electron density to water. A cylindrical opening with diameter of 16 mm and 40 mm depth was drilled into a nylon block sized 56×56×50 mm (width, length, depth). Additional slots were included in the block for ear bars and a tooth bar to serve as a three-point immobilization device as well as for anesthesia delivery and scavenging. For ease of access when loading the mouse into the holder, there is a removable piece at the top of the block that is 15 mm in depth. This serves a dual purpose, as with the proper extra shielding, the mouse jig could be used with lower linear energy transfer photons with this piece removed. A baseplate was then constructed with five square slots where the mouse jig can securely be inserted plus additional slots that would allow the baseplate to bemore » mounted on a standard lock bar in the treatment couch. This maximizes the reproducibility of placement between imaging and treatment and between treatment sessions. Results: CT imaging and radiation treatment planning was performed that showed acceptable coverage and uniformity of radiation dose in the mouse brain while sparing the throat and eyes. Conclusion: We have designed and manufactured a device that fulfills our criteria allowing us to selectively irradiate the mouse brain with a clinical linear accelerator. This setup will be used for generating mouse models of radiation-induced brain injury.« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. N Rancilio Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649223
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; AUDITORY ORGANS; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; BRAIN; CYLINDRICAL CONFIGURATION; ELECTRON DENSITY; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; MEV RANGE 01-10; MICE; RADIATION DOSES

Citation Formats

Perez-Torres, C. SU-F-T-668: Irradiating Mouse Brain with a Clinical Linear Accelerator. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956854.
Perez-Torres, C. SU-F-T-668: Irradiating Mouse Brain with a Clinical Linear Accelerator. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956854.
Perez-Torres, C. Wed . "SU-F-T-668: Irradiating Mouse Brain with a Clinical Linear Accelerator". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956854.
@article{osti_22649223,
title = {SU-F-T-668: Irradiating Mouse Brain with a Clinical Linear Accelerator},
author = {Perez-Torres, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To design and construct a “mouse jig” device that would allow for irradiation of the mouse brain with a clinical Varian 6 MeV Linear Accelerator. This device must serve as a head immobilizer, gaseous anesthesia delivery, and radiation bolus concurrently. Methods: The mouse jig was machined out of nylon given that it is inexpensive, easy to machine, and has similar electron density to water. A cylindrical opening with diameter of 16 mm and 40 mm depth was drilled into a nylon block sized 56×56×50 mm (width, length, depth). Additional slots were included in the block for ear bars and a tooth bar to serve as a three-point immobilization device as well as for anesthesia delivery and scavenging. For ease of access when loading the mouse into the holder, there is a removable piece at the top of the block that is 15 mm in depth. This serves a dual purpose, as with the proper extra shielding, the mouse jig could be used with lower linear energy transfer photons with this piece removed. A baseplate was then constructed with five square slots where the mouse jig can securely be inserted plus additional slots that would allow the baseplate to be mounted on a standard lock bar in the treatment couch. This maximizes the reproducibility of placement between imaging and treatment and between treatment sessions. Results: CT imaging and radiation treatment planning was performed that showed acceptable coverage and uniformity of radiation dose in the mouse brain while sparing the throat and eyes. Conclusion: We have designed and manufactured a device that fulfills our criteria allowing us to selectively irradiate the mouse brain with a clinical linear accelerator. This setup will be used for generating mouse models of radiation-induced brain injury.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956854},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: To evaluate the clinical rationale for Truebeam and Trilogy Linac machines from Varian Medical System as exchangeable treatment modalities in the same radiation oncology department. Methods: Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) plans for different diseases were selected for this study. These disease sites included brain, head and neck, breast, lung, and prostate. The parameters selected for this study were the energy amount, Monitor Unit (MU); dose coverage of target reflected by prescription isodose volume(PIV); dose spillage described by the volume of 50% isodoseline of the prescription; and dose homogeneities represented by the maximum dose (MaxD) and the minimum dose (MinD)more » of target volume (TV) and critical structure (CS). Each percentage difference between the values of these parameters formed an element of a matrix, which was called Similarity Comparison Matrix(SCM). The elements of the SCM were then simplified by dimensional conversion algorithm, which was used to determine clinical similarity between two machines through a single value. Results: For the selected clinical cases in this study, the average percentage differences between Trilogy and Truebeam in MU was 0.28% with standard deviation(SD) 0.66%, PIV was 0.23% with SD 0.20%, Volume at 50% prescription dose was 0.31% with SD at 0.78%, MaxD at TV is 0.26% with SD 0.35%, MinD at TV is −0.04% with SD 0.51%, MaxD in CS is −0.53% with SD 0.92%, and MinD in CS 3.31%, with SD at 2.89%. The sum, product, geometric and harmonic mean for the matrix elements were 19.0%, 0.00%, 0.19%, and 0.00%. Conclusion: A method to compare two machines in clinical level was developed and some reference values were calculated for decision-making in clinical practice, and this strategy could be expanded to different clinical applications.« less
  • Purpose: The aim of the current study is to investigate the effect of machine output variation on the delivery of the RapidArc verification plans. Methods: Three verification plans were generated using Eclipse™ treatment planning system (V11.031) with plan normalization value 100.0%. These plans were delivered on the linear accelerators using ArcCHECK− device, with machine output 1.000 cGy/MU at calibration point. These planned and delivered dose distributions were used as reference plans. Additional plans were created in Eclipse− with normalization values ranging 92.80%–102% to mimic the machine output ranging 1.072cGy/MU-0.980cGy/MU, at the calibration point. These plans were compared against the referencemore » plans using gamma indices (3%, 3mm) and (2%, 2mm). Calculated gammas were studied for its dependence on machine output. Plans were considered passed if 90% of the points satisfy the defined gamma criteria. Results: The gamma index (3%, 3mm) was insensitive to output fluctuation within the output tolerance level (2% of calibration), and showed failures, when the machine output exceeds ≥3%. Gamma (2%, 2mm) was found to be more sensitive to the output variation compared to the gamma (3%, 3mm), and showed failures, when output exceeds ≥1.7%. The variation of the gamma indices with output variability also showed dependence upon the plan parameters (e.g. MLC movement and gantry rotation). The variation of the percentage points passing gamma criteria with output variation followed a non-linear decrease beyond the output tolerance level. Conclusion: Data from the limited plans and output conditions showed that gamma (2%, 2mm) is more sensitive to the output fluctuations compared to Gamma (3%,3mm). Work under progress, including detail data from a large number of plans and a wide range of output conditions, may be able to conclude the quantitative dependence of gammas on machine output, and hence the effect on the quality of delivered rapid arc plans.« less
  • Purpose: To identify the robustness of different treatment techniques in respect to simulated linac errors on the dose distribution to the target volume and organs at risk for step and shoot IMRT (ssIMRT), VMAT and Autoplan generated VMAT nasopharynx plans. Methods: A nasopharynx patient dataset was retrospectively replanned with three different techniques: 7 beam ssIMRT, one arc manual generated VMAT and one arc automatically generated VMAT. Treatment simulated uncertainties: gantry, collimator, MLC field size and MLC shifts, were introduced into these plans at increments of 5,2,1,−1,−2 and −5 (degrees or mm) and recalculated in Pinnacle. The mean and maximum dosesmore » were calculated for the high dose PTV, parotids, brainstem, and spinal cord and then compared to the original baseline plan. Results: Simulated gantry angle errors have <1% effect on the PTV, ssIMRT is most sensitive. The small collimator errors (±1 and ±2 degrees) impacted the mean PTV dose by <2% for all techniques, however for the ±5 degree errors mean target varied by up to 7% for the Autoplan VMAT and 10% for the max dose to the spinal cord and brain stem, seen in all techniques. The simulated MLC shifts introduced the largest errors for the Autoplan VMAT, with the larger MLC modulation presumably being the cause. The most critical error observed, was the MLC field size error, where even small errors of 1 mm, caused significant changes to both the PTV and the OAR. The ssIMRT is the least sensitive and the Autoplan the most sensitive, with target errors of up to 20% over and under dosages observed. Conclusion: For a nasopharynx patient the plan robustness observed is highest for the ssIMRT plan and lowest for the Autoplan generated VMAT plan. This could be caused by the more complex MLC modulation seen for the VMAT plans. This project is supported by a grant from NSW Cancer Council.« less
  • Purpose: Quality assurance (QA) of complex linear accelerators is critical and highly time consuming. ArcCHECK Machine QA tool is used to test geometric and delivery aspects of linear accelerator. In this study we evaluated the performance of this tool. Methods: Machine QA feature allows user to perform quality assurance tests using ArcCHECK phantom. Following tests were performed 1) Gantry Speed 2) Gantry Rotation 3) Gantry Angle 4)MLC/Collimator QA 5)Beam Profile Flatness & Symmetry. Data was collected on trueBEAM stX machine for 6 MV for a period of one year. The Gantry QA test allows to view errors in gantry angle,more » rotation & assess how accurately the gantry moves around the isocentre. The MLC/Collimator QA tool is used to analyze & locate the differences between leaf bank & jaw position of linac. The flatness & Symmetry test quantifies beam flatness & symmetry in IEC-y & x direction. The Gantry & Flatness/Symmetry test can be performed for static & dynamic delivery. Results: The Gantry speed was 3.9 deg/sec with speed maximum deviation around 0.3 deg/sec. The Gantry Isocentre for arc delivery was 0.9mm & static delivery was 0.4mm. The maximum percent positive & negative difference was found to be 1.9 % & – 0.25 % & maximum distance positive & negative diff was 0.4mm & – 0.3 mm for MLC/Collimator QA. The Flatness for Arc delivery was 1.8 % & Symmetry for Y was 0.8 % & X was 1.8 %. The Flatness for gantry 0°,270°,90° & 180° was 1.75,1.9,1.8 & 1.6% respectively & Symmetry for X & Y was 0.8,0.6% for 0°, 0.6,0.7% for 270°, 0.6,1% for 90° & 0.6,0.7% for 180°. Conclusion: ArcCHECK Machine QA is an useful tool for QA of Modern linear accelerators as it tests both geometric & delivery aspects. This is very important for VMAT, SRS & SBRT treatments.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the impact of the treatment table on skin dose for prone breast patients for which the breast contacts the table and to develop a method to decrease skin dose. Methods: We used 12cm stack of 15cmx15cm solid water slabs to imitate breast. Calibrated EBT3 radiochromic film was affixed to the bottom of the phantom. Treatments for 32 patients were analyzed to determine typical prone breast beam parameters. Based on the analysis, a field size and a range of gantry angles were chosen for the test beams. Three experimental setups were used. The first represented the patient setupmore » currently used in our clinics with the phantom directly on the table. The second was the skin sparing setup, with a 1.5cm Styrofoam slab between the phantom and the table. The third used a 7.5cm Styrofoam slab to examine the extent of skin sparing potential. The calibration curve was applied to each film to determine dose. Percent difference in dose between the current and skin sparing setups was calculated for each gantry angle and gantry angle pair. Results: Data showed that beams entering through the table showed a skin dose decrease ranging from 13%–30% with the addition of 7.5cm Styrofoam, while beams exiting through the table showed no significant difference. The addition of 1.5cm Styrofoam resulted in differences ranging from 0.5%–13% with the skin sparing setup. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that skin in contact with the table receives increased dose from beams entering through the table. By creating separation between the breast and the table with Styrofoam the skin dose can be lowered, but 1.5 cm did not fully mitigate the effect. Further investigation will be performed to identify a clinically practical thickness that maximizes this mitigation.« less