Seminars in Radiation Oncology
Volume 16, Issue 4 , Pages 199-208, October 2006

Tomotherapy and Other Innovative IMRT Delivery Systems

  • John D. Fenwick, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Wirral, United Kingdom
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to John Fenwick, PhD, Medical Physics, Clatterbidge Centre for Oncology, Clatterbridge Road, Bebington, Wirral CH63 4JY, UK.
  • ,
  • Wolfgang A. Tomé, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
    • Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
  • ,
  • Emilie T. Soisson, MS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
  • ,
  • Minesh P. Mehta, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
  • ,
  • T. Rock Mackie, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
    • Tomotherapy Incorporated, Madison, WI
    • Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
    • T.R. Mackie has a financial interest in Tomotherapy Incorporated, which manufactures Hi-Art helical tomotherapy machines.

Fixed-field treatments, delivered using conventional clinical linear accelerators fitted with multileaf collimators, have rapidly become the standard form of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Several innovative nonstandard alternatives also exist, for which delivery and treatment planning systems are now commercially available. Three of these nonstandard IMRT approaches are reviewed here: tomotherapy, robotic linear accelerators (CyberKnife, Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA), and standard linear accelerators modulated by jaws alone or by their jaws acting together with a tertiary beam-masking device. Rationales for the nonstandard IMRT approaches are discussed, and elements of their delivery system designs are briefly described. Differences between fixed-field IMRT dose distributions and the distributions that can be delivered by using the nonstandard technologies are outlined. Because conventional linear accelerators are finely honed machines, innovative design enhancement of one aspect of system performance often limits another facet of machine capability. Consequently the various delivery systems may prove optimal for different types of treatment, with specific machine designs excelling for disease sites with specific target volume and normal structure topologies. However it is likely that the delivery systems will be distinguished not just by the optimality of the dose distributions they deliver, but also by factors such as the efficiency of their treatment process, the integration of their onboard imaging systems into that process, and their ability to measure and minimize or compensate for target movement, including the effects of respiratory motion.

Keywords:  IMRT , tomotherapy , Cyberknife , jaws-only IMRT , dose distribution

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (P01 CA088960), and by the Departments of Human Oncology and Medical Physics of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology.

PII: S1053-4296(06)00028-2

doi:10.1016/j.semradonc.2006.04.002

Seminars in Radiation Oncology
Volume 16, Issue 4 , Pages 199-208, October 2006