Abstract
Aims: This study compares data between the Field in Field planning and Wedge planning techniques to figure out which technique has better dose coverage and distribution for PTV, and, if using FiF technique for whole brain treatment, how many beams will have better plan. Methods: 56 patients, who need to radiate whole brain with 30 Gy/10 fractions, have been selected for this study. Four plans have been made for each patient (FiF1—one subfield per field plan, FiF2—two subfields per field plan, FiF3—three subfields per field plan, and a Wedge plan). Results: The results of Field in Field plans including Compare dose distribution on the transverse CT slice, plan evaluation using DVH, number MU of plan, Dmax, HI, HTCI, DmaxPTV, DmeanPTV. Volume of PTV with the dose over 105% prescribed dose, dose of organ at risk, and Quality Assurance (QA) plan, are better than those of Wedge plan. Conclusions: Plans using Field in Field technique has better coverage, is more homogeneous in dose distribution than plan using Wedge technique. When using Field in Field technique for whole brain radiotherapy, using three subfields per field has better result than two subfields per field and one subfield per field.
Highlights
The aim of this research is to figure out: 1) Whether using planning technique in whole brain treatment Field in Field or using Wedges planning technique is better for the patients and 2) When using Field in Field technique for whole brain treatment, how many subfields in field are better for patients [1]-[8]
It is because the PTV of Field in Field plan is covered with the 95% isodose line better than of the Wedge plan as we saw in the Results section part a) Compare dose distribution on the transverse CT slice and b) Plan evaluation using Dose Volume Histograms (DVH)
The dose distribution of the Field in Field plans is more homogeneous, covers better than the one of the Wedge plan. It can be seen in b) Plan evaluation using DVH, e) Homogeneity Index (HI) results, f) Healthy Tissues Conformity Index (HTCI) results, and j) The Quality Assurance (QA) results of plan
Summary
The aim of this research is to figure out: 1) Whether using planning technique in whole brain treatment Field in Field or using Wedges planning technique is better for the patients and 2) When using Field in Field technique for whole brain treatment, how many subfields in field are better for patients [1]-[8]. The angle of the wedge is defined as the angle between the 50% isodose line and the line perpendicular to the field axis. The wedge angle is usually in the range from 10 ̊ to 60 ̊ [2]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
