@article{RichterWegenerBreueretal.2021,
  author    = {Richter, Anne and Wegener, Sonja and Breuer, Kathrin and Razinskas, Gary and Weick, Stefan and Exner, Florian and Bratengeier, Klaus and Flentje, Michael and Sauer, Otto and Polat, B{\"u}lent},
  title     = {Comparison of sliding window and field-in-field techniques for tangential whole breast irradiation using the Halcyon and Synergy Agility systems},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13014-021-01942-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265704},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background To implement a tangential treatment technique for whole breast irradiation using the Varian Halcyon and to compare it with Elekta Synergy Agility plans. Methods For 20 patients two comparable treatment plans with respect to dose coverage and normal tissue sparing were generated. Tangential field-in-field treatment plans (Pinnacle/Synergy) were replanned using the sliding window technique (Eclipse/Halcyon). Plan specific QA was performed using the portal Dosimetry and the ArcCHECK phantom. Imaging and treatment dose were evaluated for treatment delivery on both systems using a modified CIRS Phantom. Results The mean number of monitor units for a fraction dose of 2.67 Gy was 515 MUs and 260 MUs for Halcyon and Synergy Agility plans, respectively. The homogeneity index and dose coverage were similar for both treatment units. The plan specific QA showed good agreement between measured and calculated plans. All Halcyon plans passed portal dosimetry QA (3\%/2 mm) with 100\% points passing and ArcCheck QA (3\%/2 mm) with 99.5\%. Measurement of the cumulated treatment and imaging dose with the CIRS phantom resulted in lower dose to the contralateral breast for the Halcyon plans. Conclusions For the Varian Halcyon a plan quality similar to the Elekta Synergy device was achieved. For the Halcyon plans the dose contribution from the treatment fields to the contralateral breast was even lower due to less interleaf transmission of the Halcyon MLC and a lower contribution of scattered dose from the collimator system.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RichterPolatLawrenzetal.2016,
  author    = {Richter, Anne and Polat, B{\"u}lent and Lawrenz, Ingulf and Weick, Stefan and Sauer, Otto and Flentje, Michael and Mantel, Frederick},
  title     = {Initial results for patient setup verification using transperineal ultrasound and cone beam CT in external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  number    = {147},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13014-016-0722-7},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-147677},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Evaluation of set up error detection by a transperineal ultrasound in comparison with a cone beam CT (CBCT) based system in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer. Methods: Setup verification was performed with transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) and CBCT for 10 patients treated with EBRT for prostate cancer. In total, 150 ultrasound and CBCT scans were acquired in rapid succession and analyzed for setup errors. The deviation between setup errors of the two modalities was evaluated separately for each dimension. Results: A moderate correlation in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction was observed comparing the setup errors. Mean differences between TPUS and CBCT were (-2.7 ± 2.3) mm, (3.0 ± 2.4) mm and (3.2 ± 2.7) mm in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction, respectively. The mean Euclidean difference between TPUS and CBCT was (6.0 ± 3.1) mm. Differences up to 19.2 mm were observed between the two imaging modalities. Discrepancies between TPUS and CBCT of at least 5 mm occurred in 58 \% of monitored treatment sessions. Conclusion: Setup differences between TPUS and CBCT are 6 mm on average. Although the correlation of the setup errors determined by the two different image modalities is rather week, the combination of setup verification by CBCT and intrafraction motion monitoring by TPUS imaging can use the benefits of both imaging modalities.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WilbertGuckenbergerPolatetal.2010,
  author    = {Wilbert, Juergen and Guckenberger, Matthias and Polat, Buelent and Sauer, Otto and Vogele, Michael and Flentje, Michael and Sweeney, Reinhart A.},
  title     = {Semi-robotic 6 degree of freedom positioning for intracranial high precision radiotherapy; first phantom and clinical results},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-68613},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Background: To introduce a novel method of patient positioning for high precision intracranial radiotherapy. Methods: An infrared(IR)-array, reproducibly attached to the patient via a vacuum-mouthpiece(vMP) and connected to the table via a 6 degree-of-freedom(DoF) mechanical arm serves as positioning and fixation system. After IR-based manual prepositioning to rough treatment position and fixation of the mechanical arm, a cone-beam CT(CBCT) is performed. A robotic 6 DoF treatment couch (HexaPOD™) then automatically corrects all remaining translations and rotations. This absolute position of infrared markers at the first fraction acts as reference for the following fractions where patients are manually prepositioned to within ± 2 mm and ± 2° of this IR reference position prior to final HexaPOD-based correction; consequently CBCT imaging is only required once at the first treatment fraction. The preclinical feasibility and attainable repositioning accuracy of this method was evaluated on a phantom and human volunteers as was the clinical efficacy on 7 pilot study patients. Results: Phantom and volunteer manual IR-based prepositioning to within ± 2 mm and ± 2° in 6DoF was possible within a mean(± SD) of 90 ± 31 and 56 ± 22 seconds respectively. Mean phantom translational and rotational precision after 6 DoF corrections by the HexaPOD was 0.2 ± 0.2 mm and 0.7 ± 0.8° respectively. For the actual patient collective, the mean 3D vector for inter-treatment repositioning accuracy (n = 102) was 1.6 ± 0.8 mm while intra-fraction movement (n = 110) was 0.6 ± 0.4 mm. Conclusions: This novel semi-automatic 6DoF IR-based system has been shown to compare favourably with existing non-invasive intracranial repeat fixation systems with respect to handling, reproducibility and, more importantly, intrafraction rigidity. Some advantages are full cranial positioning flexibility for single and fractionated IGRT treatments and possibly increased patient comfort.},
  subject      = {Strahlentherapie},
  language  = {en}
}