Synchrotron X-Ray Topography for Encapsulation Stress/Strain and Crack Detection in Crystalline Silicon Modules
N/A
Colli, Alessandra (ORCID:0000000343783773)↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “modules”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
A Detailed Model of Rear-Side Irradiance for Bifacial PV Modules
We describe and validate a method for modeling irradiance on the back surface of bifacial PV modules at the scale of individual cells using view factors. We compare model results with irradiance measurements on the back of PV modules in various configurations. Our analysis illustrates the relative accuracy of the model as well as the potential variation in back surface irradiance among the cells.
14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
High Step-Up Transformerless Inverter for AC Module Applications With Active Power Decoupling
Not provided.
Automation & Control Systems↗
Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of large nerve perineural spread to the skull base: a comparative dosimetric planning study
Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with large nerve perineural (LNPN) infiltration of the base of skull is a radiotherapeutic challenge given the complex target volumes to nearby organs at risk (OAR). A comparative planning study was undertaken to evaluate dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of LNPN. Five consecutive patients previously treated with IMRT for LNPN were selected. VMAT plans were generated for each case using the same planning target volumes (PTV), dose prescriptions and OAR constraints as IMRT. Comparative parameters used to assess target volume coverage, conformity and homogeneity included V95 of the PTV (volume encompassed by the 95% isodose), conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI). In addition, OAR maximum point doses, V20, V30, non-target tissue (NTT) point max doses, NTT volume above reference dose, monitor units (MU) were compared. IMRT and VMAT plans generated were comparable for CI (P = 0.12) and HI (P = 0.89). VMAT plans achieved better V95 (P = < 0.001) and reduced V20 and V30 by 652 cubic centimetres (cc) (28.5%) and 425.7 cc (29.1%), respectively. VMAT increased MU delivered by 18% without a corresponding increase in NTT dose. Compared with IMRT plans for LNPN, VMAT achieved comparable HI and CI.
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
Integrated beam orientation and scanning-spot optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy for brain and unilateral head and neck tumors
Not provided.
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging↗
Intrafraction Motion in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy
Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients delivers high doses that require high-precision treatment. Typically, image guidance is used to minimize day-to-day target displacement, but intrafraction position variability is often not corrected. Currently, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is replacing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in many departments because of its shorter delivery time. This study aimed to evaluate whether intrafraction variation in VMAT patients is reduced in comparison with patients treated with IMRT. Methods and Materials: NSCLC patients (197 IMRT and 112 VMAT) treated with a frameless SBRT technique to a prescribed dose of 3 × 18 Gy were evaluated. Image guidance for both techniques was identical: pretreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (CBCT{sub precorr}) for setup correction followed immediately before treatment by postcorrection CBCT (CBCT{sub postcorr}) for verification. Then, after either a noncoplanar IMRT technique or a VMAT technique, a posttreatment (CBCT{sub postRT}) scan was acquired. The CBCT{sub postRT} and CBCT{sub postcorr} scans were then used to evaluate intrafraction motion. Treatment delivery times, systematic (Σ) and random (σ) intrafraction variations, and associated planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated. Results: The median treatment delivery time was significantly reduced by 20 minutes (range, 32-12 minutes) using VMAT compared with noncoplanar IMRT. Intrafraction tumor motion was significantly larger for IMRT in all directions up to 0.5 mm systematic (Σ) and 0.7 mm random (σ). The required PTV margins for IMRT and VMAT differed by less than 0.3 mm. Conclusion: VMAT-based SBRT for NSCLC was associated with significantly shorter delivery times and correspondingly smaller intrafraction motion compared with noncoplanar IMRT. However, the impact on the required PTV margin was small.
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
A Comparison of Non-coplanar Three-dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and Volumetric Modulated Radiation Therapy for the Delivery of Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy to Peripheral Lung Cancer
The objective of the study was to compare three noncoplanar delivery techniques (three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy [3DCRT], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], and volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT]) for the delivery of lung stereotactic ablative radiation therapy to peripheral lung tumours.
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for pancreatic malignancies: Dosimetric comparison with sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy
Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) is an iteration of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), both of which deliver highly conformal dose distributions. Studies have shown the superiority of VMAT and IMRT in comparison with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing. This is the first study examining the benefits of VMAT in pancreatic cancer for doses more than 55.8 Gy. A planning study comparing 3D-CRT, IMRT, and VMAT was performed in 20 patients with pancreatic cancer. Treatments were planned for a 25-fraction delivery of 45 Gy to a large field followed by a reduced-volume 8-fraction external beam boost to 59.4 Gy in total. OARs and PTV doses, conformality index (CI) deviations from 1.0, monitor units (MUs) delivered, and isodose volumes were compared. IMRT and VMAT CI deviations from 1.0 for the large-field and the boost plans were equivalent (large field: 0.032 and 0.046, respectively; boost: 0.042 and 0.037, respectively; p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Both IMRT and VMAT CI deviations from 1.0 were statistically superior to 3D-CRT (large field: 0.217, boost: 0.177; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). VMAT showed reduction of the mean dose to the boost PTV (VMAT: 61.4 Gy, IMRT: 62.4 Gy, and 3D-CRT: 62.3 Gy; p < 0.05). The mean number of MUs per fraction was significantly lower for VMAT for both the large-field and the boost plans. VMAT delivery time was less than 3 minutes compared with 8 minutes for IMRT. Although no statistically significant dose reduction to the OARs was identified when comparing VMAT with IMRT, VMAT showed a reduction in the volumes of the 100% isodose line for the large-field plans. Dose escalation to 59.4 Gy in pancreatic cancer is dosimetrically feasible with shorter treatment times, fewer MUs delivered, and comparable CIs for VMAT when compared with IMRT.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Comparison of testicular dose delivered by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with prostate cancer
A small decrease in testosterone level has been documented after prostate irradiation, possibly owing to the incidental dose to the testes. Testicular doses from prostate external beam radiation plans with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were calculated to investigate any difference. Testicles were contoured for 16 patients being treated for localized prostate cancer. For each patient, 2 plans were created: 1 with IMRT and 1 with VMAT. No specific attempt was made to reduce testicular dose. Minimum, maximum, and mean doses to the testicles were recorded for each plan. Of the 16 patients, 4 received a total dose of 7800 cGy to the prostate alone, 7 received 8000 cGy to the prostate alone, and 5 received 8000 cGy to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. The mean (range) of testicular dose with an IMRT plan was 54.7 cGy (21.1 to 91.9) and 59.0 cGy (25.1 to 93.4) with a VMAT plan. In 12 cases, the mean VMAT dose was higher than the mean IMRT dose, with a mean difference of 4.3 cGy (p = 0.019). There was a small but statistically significant increase in mean testicular dose delivered by VMAT compared with IMRT. Despite this, it unlikely that there is a clinically meaningful difference in testicular doses from either modality.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Whole-brain hippocampal sparing radiation therapy: Volume-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy case study
The hippocampus is responsible for memory and cognitive function. An ongoing phase II clinical trial suggests that sparing dose to the hippocampus during whole-brain radiation therapy can help preserve a patient's neurocognitive function. Progressive research and advancements in treatment techniques have made treatment planning more sophisticated but beneficial for patients undergoing treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare hippocampal sparing whole-brain (HS-WB) radiation therapy treatment planning techniques using volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We randomly selected 3 patients to compare different treatment techniques that could be used for reducing dose to the hippocampal region. We created 2 treatment plans, a VMAT and an IMRT, from each patient's data set and planned on the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system (TPS). A total of 6 plans (3 IMRT and 3 VMAT) were created and evaluated for this case study. The physician contoured the hippocampus as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0933 protocol atlas. The organs at risk (OR) were contoured and evaluated for the plan comparison, which included the spinal cord, optic chiasm, the right and left eyes, lenses, and optic nerves. Both treatment plans produced adequate coverage on the planning target volume (PTV) while significantly reducing dose to the hippocampal region. The VMAT treatment plans produced a more homogenous dose distribution throughout the PTV while decreasing the maximum point dose to the target. However, both treatment techniques demonstrated hippocampal sparing when irradiating the whole brain.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
A comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma
This article is aimed to compare the dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (NNKTL). Ten patients with Stage I-II NNKTL treated with IMRT were replanned with VMAT (2 arcs). The prescribed dose of the planning target volume (PTV) was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The VMAT plans with the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (Version 8.6.15) were based on an Eclipse treatment planning system; the monitor units (MUs) and treatment time (T) were scored to measure the expected treatment efficiency. All the 10 patients under the study were subject to comparisons regarding the quality of target coverage, the efficiency of delivery, and the exposure of normal adjacent organs at risk (OARs). The study shows that VMAT was associated with a better conformal index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) (both p < 0.05) but slightly higher dose to OARs than IMRT. The MUs with VMAT (650.80 ± 24.59) were fewer than with IMRT (1300.10 ± 57.12) (relative reduction of 49.94%, p = 0.00) when using 2-Gy dose fractions. The treatment time with VMAT (3.20 ± 0.02 minutes) was shorter than with IMRT (7.38 ± 0.18 minutes) (relative reduction of 56.64%, p = 0.00). We found that VMAT and IMRT both provide satisfactory target dosimetric coverage and OARs sparing clinically. Likely to deliver a bit higher dose to OARs, VMAT in comparison with IMRT, is still a better choice for treatment of patients with Stage I-II NNKTL, thanks to better dose distribution, fewer MUs, and shorter delivery time.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Skin dose differences between intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy and between boost and integrated treatment regimens for treating head and neck and other cancer sites in patients
The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate dose to skin between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment techniques for target sites in the head and neck, pelvis, and brain and (2) to determine if the treatment dose and fractionation regimen affect the skin dose between traditional sequential boost and integrated boost regimens for patients with head and neck cancer. A total of 19 patients and 48 plans were evaluated. The Eclipse (v11) treatment planning system was used to plan therapy in 9 patients with head and neck cancer, 5 patients with prostate cancer, and 5 patients with brain cancer with VMAT and static-field IMRT. The mean skin dose and the maximum dose to a contiguous volume of 2 cm{sup 3} for head and neck plans and brain plans and a contiguous volume of 5 cm{sup 3} for pelvis plans were compared for each treatment technique. Of the 9 patients with head and neck cancer, 3 underwent an integrated boost regimen. One integrated boost plan was replanned with IMRT and VMAT using a traditional boost regimen. For target sites located in the head and neck, VMAT reduced the mean dose and contiguous hot spot most noticeably in the shoulder region by 5.6% and 5.4%, respectively. When using an integrated boost regimen, the contiguous hot spot skin dose in the shoulder was larger on average than a traditional boost pattern by 26.5% and the mean skin dose was larger by 1.7%. VMAT techniques largely decrease the contiguous hot spot in the skin in the pelvis by an average of 36% compared with IMRT. For the same target coverage, VMAT can reduce the skin dose in all the regions of the body, but more noticeably in the shoulders in patients with head and neck and pelvis cancer. We also found that using integrated boost regimens in patients with head and neck cancer leads to higher shoulder skin doses compared with traditional boost regimens.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Dosimetric comparison between step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma
To compare and analyze the dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs step-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (sIMRT) for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma. Single-arc VMAT (VMAT1), dual-arc VMAT (VMAT2), and 7-field sIMRT plans were designed for 30 patients with upper thoracic or cervical esophageal carcinoma. Planning target volume (PTV) was prescribed to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, and PTV1 was prescribed to 60 Gy in 28 fractions. The parameters evaluated included dose homogeneity and conformality, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and delivery efficiency. (1) In comparison to sIMRT, VMAT provided a systematic improvement in PTV1 coverage. The homogeneity index of VMAT1 was better than that of VMAT2. There were no significant differences among sIMRT, VMAT1, and VMAT2 in PTV coverage. (2) VMAT1 and VMAT2 reduced the maximum dose of spinal cord as compared with sIMRT (p < 0.05). The rest dose-volume characteristics of OARs were similar. (3) Monitor units of VMAT2 and VMAT1 were more than sIMRT. However, the treatment time of VMAT1, VMAT2, and sIMRT was (2.0 ± 0.2), (2.8 ± 0.3), and (9.8 ± 0.8) minutes, respectively. VMAT1 was the fastest, and the difference was statistically significant. In the treatment of upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma by the AXESSE linac, compared with 7-field sIMRT, VMAT showed better PTV1 coverage and superior spinal cord sparing. Single-arc VMAT had similar target volume coverage and the sparing of OAR to dual-arc VMAT, with shortest treatment time and highest treatment efficiency in the 3 kinds of plans.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Under conditions of large geometric miss, tumor control probability can be higher for static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy compared to volume-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer
The purpose of this work was to compare static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in terms of tumor control probability (TCP) under scenarios involving large geometric misses, i.e., those beyond what are accounted for when margin expansion is determined. Using a planning approach typical for these treatments, a linear-quadratic–based model for TCP was used to compare mean TCP values for a population of patients who experiences a geometric miss (i.e., systematic and random shifts of the clinical target volume within the planning target dose distribution). A Monte Carlo approach was used to account for the different biological sensitivities of a population of patients. Interestingly, for errors consisting of coplanar systematic target volume offsets and three-dimensional random offsets, static gantry IMRT appears to offer an advantage over VMAT in that larger shift errors are tolerated for the same mean TCP. For example, under the conditions simulated, erroneous systematic shifts of 15 mm directly between or directly into static gantry IMRT fields result in mean TCP values between 96% and 98%, whereas the same errors on VMAT plans result in mean TCP values between 45% and 74%. Random geometric shifts of the target volume were characterized using normal distributions in each Cartesian dimension. When the standard deviations were doubled from those values assumed in the derivation of the treatment margins, our model showed a 7% drop in mean TCP for the static gantry IMRT plans but a 20% drop in TCP for the VMAT plans. Although adding a margin for error to a clinical target volume is perhaps the best approach to account for expected geometric misses, this work suggests that static gantry IMRT may offer a treatment that is more tolerant to geometric miss errors than VMAT.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer compared with intensity-modulated radiation: A case-matched control analysis
A potential advantage of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated (photon) radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) is lower radiation dose to several critical structures involved in the development of nausea and vomiting, mucositis, and dysphagia. The purpose of this study was to quantify doses to critical structures for patients with OPC treated with IMPT and compare those with doses on IMRT plans generated for the same patients and with a matched cohort of patients actually treated with IMRT. In this study, 25 patients newly diagnosed with OPC were treated with IMPT between 2011 and 2012. Comparison IMRT plans were generated for these patients and for additional IMRT-treated controls extracted from a database of patients with OPC treated between 2000 and 2009. Cases were matched based on the following criteria, in order: unilateral vs bilateral therapy, tonsil vs base of tongue primary, T-category, N-category, concurrent chemotherapy, induction chemotherapy, smoking status, sex, and age. Results showed that the mean doses to the anterior and posterior oral cavity, hard palate, larynx, mandible, and esophagus were significantly lower with IMPT than with IMRT comparison plans generated for the same cohort, as were doses to several central nervous system structures involved in the nausea and vomiting response. Similar differences were found when comparing dose to organs at risks (OARs) between the IMPT cohort and the case-matched IMRT cohort. In conclusion, these findings suggest that patients with OPC treated with IMPT may experience fewer and less severe side effects during therapy. This may be the result of decreased beam path toxicities with IMPT due to lower doses to several dysphagia, odynophagia, and nausea and vomiting–associated OARs. Further study is needed to evaluate differences in long-term disease control and chronic toxicity between patients with OPC treated with IMPT in comparison to those treated with IMRT.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and 3-dimensional conformal therapy for the treatment of T1N0 glottic cancer
Various radiotherapy planning methods for T1N0 laryngeal cancer have been proposed to decrease normal tissue toxicity. We compare helical tomotherapy (HT), linac-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) techniques for T1N0 laryngeal cancer. Overall, 10 patients with T1N0 laryngeal cancer were selected and evaluated. Furthermore, 10 radiotherapy treatment plans have been created for all 10 patients, including HT, IMRT, VMAT, and 3D-CRT. IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans vs 3D-CRT plans consistently provided superior planning target volume (PTV) coverage. Similar target coverage was observed between the 3 IMRT modalities. Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT, HT, and VMAT significantly reduced the mean dose to the carotid arteries. VMAT resulted in the lowest mean dose to the submandibular and thyroid glands. Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT, HT, and VMAT significantly increased the maximum dose to the spinal cord It was observed that the 3 IMRT modalities studied showed superior target coverage with less variation between each plan in comparison with 3D-CRT. The 3D-CRT plans performed better at the D{sub max} of the spinal cord. Clinical investigation is warranted to determine if these treatment approaches would translate into a reduction in radiation therapy–induced toxicities.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗