Tomotherapy: Comparison of Hi-ART, Tomo-HD, and Radixact
Hiromasa Kurosaki, Kenta Hirayama, Masaki Takahashi, Masahiro Uematsu, Etsuko Tate
Abstract
Open-access reader
Hiromasa Kurosaki, Kenta Hirayama, Masaki Takahashi, Masahiro Uematsu, Etsuko Tate
Abstract
Open-access reader
Aim In this study, we compared three generations of tomotherapy (Hi-ART, Tomo-HD, and Radixact). This is to study the difference among tomotherapy systems in terms of dose distribution to planning target volume and organs at risk, and irradiation time. Materials and methods The treatment planning CT and contour information used were seven cases of rectum cancer pre-operative irradiation. The contour information used was the planning target volume, and the organs at risk were set as the bladder and body. Optimization was conducted at each planning station using the parameters that were actually used in a clinical setting. The prescribed radiation dose was 25 Gy in five fractions and normalized at the isodose line, covering 95% of the planning target volume. Results There were no significant differences in planning target volume among the three models. Meanwhile, Hi-ART had a significantly higher dose than Tomo-HD and Radixact at body D50%. Radixact shortened the irradiation time by approximately 15% compared to Hi-ART/Tomo-HD. Conclusion Planning target volume dose distribution of tomotherapy devices was not different. Radixact required a significantly shorter time than Hi-ART and Tomo-HD.
OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Aim In this study, we compared three generations of tomotherapy (Hi-ART, Tomo-HD, and Radixact). This is to study the difference among tomotherapy systems in terms of dose distribution to planning target volume and organs at risk, and irradiation time. Materials and methods The treatment planning CT and contour information used were seven cases of rectum cancer pre-operative irradiation. The contour information used was the planning target volume, and the organs at risk were set as the bladder and body. Optimization was conducted at each planning station using the parameters that were actually used in a clinical setting. The prescribed radiation dose was 25 Gy in five fractions and normalized at the isodose line, covering 95% of the planning target volume. Results There were no significant differences in planning target volume among the three models. Meanwhile, Hi-ART had a significantly higher dose than Tomo-HD and Radixact at body D50%. Radixact shortened the irradiation time by approximately 15% compared to Hi-ART/Tomo-HD. Conclusion Planning target volume dose distribution of tomotherapy devices was not different. Radixact required a significantly shorter time than Hi-ART and Tomo-HD.
Key concepts: Tomotherapy, Medicine, Radiation treatment planning, Nuclear medicine, Rectum, Radiation therapy, Volume (thermodynamics), Irradiation