In regard to "Tran A, Zhang J, Woods K, Yu V, Nguyen D, Gustafson G, Rosen L, Sheng K. Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases. Radiation oncology. 2017 Jan 11; 12(1):10"
- PMID: 29650027
- PMCID: PMC5896086
- DOI: 10.1186/s13014-018-1009-y
In regard to "Tran A, Zhang J, Woods K, Yu V, Nguyen D, Gustafson G, Rosen L, Sheng K. Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases. Radiation oncology. 2017 Jan 11; 12(1):10"
Abstract
This article describe the three dimensional geometrical incompetency of the term "4π radiotherapy"; frequently used in radiation oncology to establish the superiority (or rather complexity) of particular kind of external beam delivery technique. It was claimed by several researchers, to obtain 4πc solid angle at target centre created by the tele-therapy delivery machine in three dimensional Euclidian space. However with the present design of linear accelerator (or any other tele-therapy machine) it is not possible to achieve more than 2πc with the allowed boundary condition of 0 ≤ Gnatry position≤πc and [Formula: see text]≤Couch Position≤[Formula: see text] .This article describes why it is not possible to achieve a 4πc solid angle at any point in three dimensional Euclidian spaces. This article also recommends not to use the terminology "4π radiotherapy" for describing any external beam technique or its complexity as this term is geometrically wrong.
Keywords: 3D Euclidian space; 4π radiotherapy; Couch; Gantry; Linear accelerator; Radian; Sold angle; Solid geometry; π.
Conflict of interest statement
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not required, no patient data/ information Involved.
Consent for publication
Not required, no patient data/ information Involved.
Competing interests
The author declares that he/she has no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Comment in
-
Response to "in regard to "Tran A, Zhang J, Woods K, Yu V, Nguyen D, Gustafson G, Rosen L, Sheng K. Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases"".Radiat Oncol. 2018 Apr 13;13(1):66. doi: 10.1186/s13014-018-1010-5. Radiat Oncol. 2018. PMID: 29653549 Free PMC article.
Comment on
-
Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases.Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jan 11;12(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s13014-016-0761-0. Radiat Oncol. 2017. PMID: 28077128 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Dong P, Lee P, Ruan D, Long T, Romeijn E, Yang Y, Low D, Kupelian P, Sheng K. 4π non-coplanar liver SBRT: a novel delivery technique. international journal of radiation oncology* biology*. Physics. 2013;85(5):1360–1366. - PubMed
-
- Dong P, Lee P, Ruan D, Long T, Romeijn E, Low DA, Kupelian P, Abraham J, Yang Y, Sheng K. 4π noncoplanar stereotactic body radiation therapy for centrally located or larger lung tumors. International journal of radiation oncology* biology*. Physics. 2013;86(3):407–413. - PubMed
-
- Rwigema JC, Nguyen D, Heron DE, Chen AM, Lee P, Wang PC, Vargo JA, Low DA, Huq MS, Tenn S, Steinberg ML. 4π noncoplanar stereotactic body radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: potential to improve tumor control and late toxicity. International journal of radiation oncology* biology*. Physics. 2015;91(2):401–409. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
