10 likes | 114 Views
This study examines the impact of different gantry angles and segments on treatment plans in radiotherapy, analyzing MU distribution and field configurations for supine and prone positions. Results show varying MU distribution and field setups.
E N D
Pat. Position Number Gantry angles Segment Segments Monitor Units (MU) MU MU total / No. of fields number / field total per field and fract ion average / beam fraction 1 supine 5 72,124,180,236,288 10,8,12,9,6 45 70,57,112,62,49 70 352 2 supine 5 72,124,180,236,288 9,12,13,9,9 52 113,128,108,102,105 111 559 3 prone 5 0,56,108,252,304 14,10,10,10, 11 55 136,73,69,94,70 88 444 4 prone 6 0,56,108,180,252,304 7,11,10,12,7,15 62 82,81,126,111,82,150 105 634 5 prone 6 0,56,108,180,252,304 7,9,8,10,8,10 52 62,79,61,106,74,67 75 453 6 prone 6 0,56,108,180,252,304 12,14,9,8 ,10,10 63 98,109,80,69,88,82 88 528 Pat. Position Number Gantry angles Segment Segments Monitor Units (MU) MU MU No. of fields number / field total per field and fraction average / beam total / fraction 1 supine 5 0,72,144,216, 288 10,6,6,7,6 35 103,84,62,57,80 77 388 2 supine 5 0,72,144,236,288 4,6,6,5,4 25 55,77,52,49,56 58 291 3 prone 5 36,108,180,252,324 7,9,7,8,5 36 54,85,76,70,42 65 330 4 prone 5 36,108,180,252,324 11,11,10,11,11 54 80 ,85,83,101,79 86 432 5 prone 5 36,108,180,252,324 6,5,7,8,5 31 38,69,62,89,40 60 300 6 prone 5 36,108,180,252,324 5,6,9,5,5 30 52,74,83,67,59 69 337