(Sunday, 7/12/2020) [Eastern Time (GMT-4)]
Room: AAPM ePoster Library
Purpose: aim of the study was to compare the dose differences between four kinds of materials (commercial bolus, thermoplastic bolus, foamed plastics bolus, 3D-printed bolus) used to prepare bolus and without bolus, in head phantoms (CIRS 711-HN) simulating nose radiotherapy.
Methods: evaluate the clinical feasibility, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were created for head phantoms with the bolus of commercial bolus, thermoplastic bolus, foamed plastics bolus, 3D-printed bolus (with the matter of FDM TPU 92A) and without bolus. Dosimetry differences were compared in simulating nose radiotherapy separately.
Results: air gaps were smaller in the 3D-printed bolus than the commercial bolus, thermoplastic bolus and foamed plastics bolus. In nose plans, it was shown that the V95% and V100% (relative volume that is covered by at least 95% and 100% of the prescription dose) of the commercial bolus (98.99% and 94.88%), thermoplastic bolus (99.08% and 94.96%), foamed plastics bolus (94.22% and 83.27%) and without bolus (88.62% and 81.22%) were worse than the 3D-printed bolus (99.09% and 97.14%). Similarly, the homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the commercial bolus, thermoplastic bolus foamed plastics bolus and without bolus were worse than the 3D-printed bolus in phantoms plans.
Conclusion: bolus was not only good for fit and a high level of HI and CI, but also had better parameters in IMRT plans. They could replace the commercial bolus for clinical use
Keywords
Not Applicable / None Entered.
Taxonomy
Not Applicable / None Entered.
Contact Email