Knowledge-based planning using pseudo-structures for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of postoperative uterine cervical cancer: a multi-institutional study

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the performance of the RapidPlan (RP ) using models registered pseudostructures, and to determine how many structures are required for automatic optimization of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for postoperative uterine cervical cancer.Materials and methodsPseudo-structures around the PTV were retrospectively contoured for patients who had completed treatment at five institutions. For 22 common patients, plans were generated with a single optimization for models with two (RP_2), four (RP_4), and five (RP_5) registered structures, and the dosimetric parameters of these models were compared with a clinical plan with several optimizations.ResultsMost dosimetric parameters showed no major differences between each RP model. In particular, the rectum D_max, V_50Gy, and V_40Gy with RP_2, RP_4, and RP_5 were not significantly different, and were lower than those of the clinical plan. The average proportions of plans achieving acceptable criteria for dosimetric parameters were close to 100% for all models. Using RP_2, the average time for the VMAT planning was reduced by 88 minutes compared with the clinical plan.ConclusionThe RapidPlan model with two registered pseudo-structures could generate clinically acceptable plans while saving time.     

Evaluation of plan quality improvements in PlanIQ-guided Autoplanning

AimPhilips recently integrated PlanIQ with Autoplan® in Pinnacle³ TPS (V16.2). The objective of the present work is to quantitatively demonstrate how this integration improves the plan quality.BackgroundPinnacle³ Autoplan® is the tool that generates the treatment plans with clinically acceptable plan quality with less manual intervention. In the recent past, a new tool called PlanIQ (Sun Nuclear Corp.) was introduced for a priori estimation of the best possible sparing of an organ at risk (OAR) for a given patient anatomy. Philips has recently integrated PlanIQ tool with Autoplan® for a seamless and efficient planning workflow.Materials and methodsWe have performed this evaluation in Pinnacle³ TPS (V.16.2) for the VMAT treatment technique. All plans were created using Varian True beam machine with the dual arc technique. Basically, we created two sets of VMAT plans using 6 MV photons. In the first set of VMAT plans (AP_RTOG), we used OAR goals from either RTOG guidelines to perform optimization using Autoplan®. Subsequently, we exported the same dataset to the PlanIQ system to perform feasibility analysis on the OAR goals. These newly obtained OAR goals from PlanIQ were used to generate the other set of plans (AP_PlanIQ plans). We compared the dosimetric results from these two sets of plans in five cases, such as brain, head & neck, lung, abdomen and prostate.ResultsWe compared the dosimetric results for AP_RTOG and AP_PlanIQ plans. We used RTOG guidelines to evaluate the plans and observed that while both sets of plans were meeting the RTOG guidelines in terms of OAR sparing, the AP_PlanIQ plans were significantly better in terms of OAR sparing as compared to AP_RTOG plans without any compromise in the target coverage.ConclusionThe results indicate that, although Autoplan helps achieve the user-defined goals without much manual intervention, the plan quality (OAR sparing) can be significantly improved without taking many iterative steps when PlanIQ suggested clinical goals are used in the Autoplan-based optimization.Advances in knowledgeAt present, there are no published material available about the efficacy of the integration of PlanIQ with Autoplanning®. In the present work, our objective is to evaluate the improvements in plan quality resulting from this integration.     

Quality assurance-based optimization (QAO): Towards improving patient-specific quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc therapy plans using machine learning

IntroductionPrevious literature has shown general trade-offs between plan complexity and resulting quality assurance (QA) outcomes. However, existing solutions for controlling this trade-off do not guarantee corresponding improvements in deliverability. Therefore, this work explored the feasibility of an optimization framework for directly maximizing predicted QA outcomes of plans without compromising the dosimetric quality of plans designed with an established knowledge-based planning (KBP) technique.Materials and MethodsA support vector machine (SVM) was developed – using a database of 500 previous VMAT plans – to predict gamma passing rates (GPRs; 3%/3mm percent dose-difference/distance-to-agreement with local normalization) based on selected complexity features. A heuristic, QA-based optimization (QAO) framework was devised by utilizing the SVM model to iteratively modify mechanical treatment features most commonly associated with suboptimal GPRs. Specifically, leaf gaps (LGs) <50 mm were widened by random amounts, which impacts all aperture-based complexity features. 13 prostate KBP-guided VMAT plans were optimized via QAO using user-specified maximum LG displacements before corresponding changes in predicted GPRs and dose were assessed.ResultsPredicted GPRs increased by an average of 1.14 ± 1.25% (p = 0.006) with QAO using a 3 mm maximum random LG displacement. There were small differences in dose, resulting in similarly small changes in tumor control probability (maximum increase = 0.05%) and normal tissue complication probabilities in the bladder, rectum, and femoral heads (maximum decrease = 0.2% in the rectum).ConclusionThis study explored the feasibility of QAO and warrants future investigations of further incorporating QA endpoints into plan optimization.     

Characterization of robust optimization for VMAT plan for liver cancer

PurposeWe investigated the feasibility of robust optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver cancer in comparison with planning target volume (PTV)-based optimized plans. Treatment plan quality, robustness, complexity, and accuracy of dose delivery were assessed.MethodsTen liver cancer patients were selected for this study. PTV-based optimized plans with an 8-mm PTV margin and robust optimized plans with an 8-mm setup uncertainty were generated. Plan perturbed doses were evaluated using a setup error of 8 mm in all directions from the isocenter. The dosimetric comparison parameters were clinical target volume (CTV) doses (D_98%, D_50%, and D_2%), liver doses, and monitor unit (MU). Plan complexity was evaluated using the modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv).ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two optimizations with respect to CTV doses and MUs. Robust optimized plans had a higher liver dose than did PTV-based optimized plans. Plan perturbed dose evaluations showed that doses to the CTV for the robust optimized plans had small variations. Robust optimized plans were less complex than PTV-based optimized plans. Robust optimized plans had statistically significant fewer leaf position errors than did PTV-based optimized plans.ConclusionsComparison of treatment plan quality, robustness, and plan complexity of both optimizations showed that robust optimization could be feasibile for VMAT of liver cancer.     

Dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with segment shape optimization and variable dose rate versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for liver SBRT

AimThe aim is a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with the segment shape optimization and variable dose rate (DCA_SSO_VDR) versus VMAT for liver SBRT and interaction of various treatment plan quality indices with PTV and degree of modulation (DoM) for both techniques.BackgroundThe DCA is the state-of-the-art technique but overall inferior to VMAT, and the DCA_SSO_VDR technique was not studied for liver SBRT.Materials and methodsTwenty-five patients of liver SBRT treated using the VMAT technique were selected. DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans were also generated for all patients in Monaco TPS using the same objective constraint template and treatment planning parameters as used for the VMAT technique. For comparison purpose, organs at risk (OARs) doses and treatment plans quality indices, such as maximum dose of PTV (D_max%), mean dose of PTV (D_mean%), maximum dose at 2 cm in any direction from the PTV (D_2cm%), total monitor units (MU’s), gradient index R_50%, degree of modulation (DoM), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and healthy tissue mean dose (HTMD) were compared.ResultsSignificant dosimetric differences were observed in several OARs doses and lowered in VMAT plans. The D_2cm%, R_50%, CI, HI and HTMD are dosimetrically inferior in DCA_SSO_VDR plans. The higher DoM results in poor dose gradient and better dose gradient for DCA_SSO_VDR and VMAT treatment plans, respectively.ConclusionsFor liver SBRT, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans are neither dosimetrically superior nor better alternative to the VMAT delivery technique. A reduction of 69.75% MU was observed in DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans. For the large size of PTV and high DoM, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans result in poorer quality.     

Analysis of the planned,delivered dose distributions and quality assurance for helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BackgroundWith full access to both helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), we compared locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) treatment plans and verified the plans using patient-specific pretreatment quality assurance (PSQA).Materials and methodsFor each of the seventeen patients included in the study, two treatment plans (i.e. HT and VMAT) were created. Optimized plans were evaluated following the ICRU 83 criteria. Planned quality indexes and dosimetric parameters were compared. Lastly, all plans were subjected to PSQA assessment by determining the gamma passing rate (GPR).ResultsAll dosimetry results obtained from the planning target volume passed the ICRU 83 criteria. With regard to similar homogeneity indices, VMAT produced better conformity number values than HT (0.78 vs. 0.64), but differences in the values were insignificant. Furthermore, VMAT was associated with a significantly shorter mean treatment time (1.91 minutes vs. 6.66 minutes). For PSQA assessment, both techniques resulted in adequate GPR values (> 90% at the 3%/3 mm criteria).ConclusionBoth HT and VMAT techniques led to the generation of clinically satisfactory and reliable radiotherapy plans. However, the VMAT plan was associated with a non-significantly better degree of conformity and a significantly shorter treatment time. Thus, VMAT was determined to be a better choice for LA-NSCLC.     

Integrated scoring approach to assess radiotherapy plan quality for breast cancer treatment

BackgroundProposal of an integrated scoring approach assessing the quality of different treatment techniques in a radiotherapy planning comparison. This scoring method incorporates all dosimetric indices of planning target volumes (PTVs) as well as organs at risk (OARs) and provides a single quantitative measure to select an ideal plan.Materials and methodsThe radiotherapy planning techniques compared were field-in-field (FinF), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), hybrid IMRT (H-IMRT), and hybrid VMAT (H-VMAT). These plans were generated for twenty-five locally advanced left-sided breast cancer patients. The PTVs were prescribed a hypofractionation dose of 40.5 Gy in 15 fractions. The integrated score for each planning technique was calculated using the proposed formula.ResultsAn integrated score value that is close to zero indicates a superior plan. The integrated score that incorporates all dosimetric indices (PTVs and OARs) were 1.37, 1.64, 1.72, 1.18, and 1.24 for FinF, IMRT, VMAT, H-IMRT, and H-VMAT plans, respectively.ConclusionThe proposed integrated scoring approach is scientific to select a better plan and flexible to incorporate the patient-specific clinical demands. This simple tool is useful to quantify the treatment techniques and able to differentiate the acceptable and unacceptable plans.     

Advanced optimization methods for whole pelvic and local prostate external beam therapy

PurposeRadiation treatment planning inherently involves multiple conflicting planning goals, which makes it a suitable application for multicriteria optimization (MCO). This study investigates a MCO algorithm for VMAT planning (VMAT–MCO) for prostate cancer treatments including pelvic lymph nodes and uses standard inverse VMAT optimization (sVMAT) and Tomotherapy planning as benchmarks.MethodsFor each of ten prostate cancer patients, a two stage plan was generated, consisting of a stage 1 plan delivering 22 Gy to the prostate, and a stage 2 plan delivering 50.4 Gy to the lymph nodes and 56 Gy to the prostate with a simultaneous integrated boost. The single plans were generated by three planning techniques (VMAT–MCO, sVMAT, Tomotherapy) and subsequently compared with respect to plan quality and planning time efficiency.ResultsPlan quality was similar for all techniques, but sVMAT showed slightly better rectum (on average D_mean −7%) and bowel sparing (D_mean −17%) compared to VMAT–MCO in the whole pelvic treatments. Tomotherapy plans exhibited higher bladder dose (D_mean +42%) in stage 1 and lower rectum dose (D_mean −6%) in stage 2 than VMAT–MCO. Compared to manual planning, the planning time with MCO was reduced up to 12 and 38 min for stage 1 and 2 plans, respectively.ConclusionMCO can generate highly conformal prostate VMAT plans with minimal workload in the settings of prostate-only treatments and prostate plus lymph nodes irradiation. In the whole pelvic plan manual VMAT optimization led to slightly improved OAR sparing over VMAT–MCO, whereas for the primary prostate treatment plan quality was equal.     

Assessment of a conventional volumetric-modulated arc therapy knowledge-based planning model applied to the new Halcyon© O-ring linac in locoregional breast cancer radiotherapy

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for breast cancer trained on plans performed on a conventional linac with 6 MV FF (flattening filter) beams and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for plans performed on the new jawless Halcyon© system with 6 MV FFF (flattening filter-free) beams.Materials and methodsBased on the RapidPlan© (RP) KBP optimization engine, a DVH Estimation Model was first trained using 56 VMAT left-sided breast cancer treatment plans performed on a conventional linac, and validated on another 20 similar cases (without manual intervention). To determine the capacity of the model for Halcyon©, an additional cohort of 20 left-sided breast cancer plans was generated with RP and analyzed for both TrueBeam© and Halcyon© machines. Plan qualities between manual vs RP (followed by manual intervention) Halcyon© plans set were compared qualitatively by blinded review by radiation oncologists for 10 new independent plans.ResultsHalcyon© plans generated with the VMAT model trained with conventional linac plans showed comparable target dose distribution compared to TrueBeam© plans. Organ sparing was comparable between the 2 devices with a slight decrease in heart dose for Halcyon© plans. Nine out of ten automatically generated Halcyon© plans were preferentially chosen by the radiation oncologists over the manually generated Halcyon© plans.ConclusionA VMAT KBP model driven by plans performed on a conventional linac with 6 MV FF beams provides high quality plans performed with 6 MV FFF beams on the new Halcyon© linac.     

Multi-institutional comparison of simulated treatment delivery errors in ssIMRT,manually planned VMAT and autoplan-VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal radiotherapy

PurposeTo quantify the impact of simulated errors for nasopharynx radiotherapy across multiple institutions and planning techniques (auto-plan generated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (ap-VMAT), manually planned VMAT (mp-VMAT) and manually planned step and shoot Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (mp-ssIMRT)).MethodsTen patients were retrospectively planned with VMAT according to three institution’s protocols. Within one institution two further treatment plans were generated using differing treatment planning techniques. This resulted in mp-ssIMRT, mp-VMAT, and ap-VMAT plans. Introduced treatment errors included Multi Leaf Collimator (MLC) shifts, MLC field size (MLCfs), gantry and collimator errors. A change of more than 5% in most selected dose metrics was considered to have potential clinical impact. The original patient plan total Monitor Units (MUs) were correlated to the total number of dose metrics exceeded.ResultsThe impact of different errors was consistent, with ap-VMAT plans (two institutions) showing larger dose deviations than mp-VMAT created plans (one institution). Across all institutions’ VMAT plans the significant errors included; ±5° for the collimator angle, ±5 mm for the MLC shift and +1, ±2 and ±5 mm for the MLC field size. The total number of dose metrics exceeding tolerance was positively correlated to the VMAT total plan MUs (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), across all institutions and techniques.ConclusionsDifferences in VMAT robustness to simulated errors across institutions occurred due to planning method differences. Whilst ap-VMAT was most sensitive to MLC errors, it also produced the best quality treatment plans. Mp-ssIMRT was most robust to errors. Higher VMAT treatment plan complexity led to less robust plans.     

Dosimetric comparison of analytic anisotropic algorithm and Acuros XB algorithm in VMAT plans for high-grade glioma

PurposeTo investigate the dosimetric impact between the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for high-grade glioma (HGG).MethodsWe used a heterogeneous phantom to quantify the agreement between the measured and calculated doses from the AAA and from the AXB. We then analyzed 14 patients with HGG treated by VMAT, using the AAA. We newly created AXB plans for each corresponding AAA plan under the following conditions: (1) re-calculation for the same number of monitor units with an identical beam and leaf setup, and (2) re-optimization under the same conditions of dose constraints. The dose coverage for the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated by dividing the coverage into the skull, air, and soft-tissue regions.ResultsCompared to the results obtained with the AAA, the AXB results were in good agreement with the measured profiles. The dose differences in the PTV between the AAA and re-calculated AXB plans were large in the skull region contained in the target. The dose difference in the PTV in both types of plan was significantly correlated with the volume of the skull contained in the target (r = 0.71, p = 0.0042). A re-optimized AXB plan's dose difference was lower vs. the re-calculated AXB plan's.ConclusionsWe observed dose differences between the AAA and AXB plans, in particular in the cases in which the skull region of the target was large. Considering the phantom measurement results, the AXB algorithm should be used in VMAT plans for HGG.     

Dosimetric impact of statistical uncertainty on Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy using Monaco TPS for three different clinical cases

AimTo study the dosimetric impact of statistical uncertainty (SU) per plan on Monte Carlo (MC) calculation in Monaco? treatment planning system (TPS) during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for three different clinical cases.BackgroundDuring MC calculation SU is an important factor to decide dose calculation accuracy and calculation time. It is necessary to evaluate optimal acceptance of SU for quality plan with reduced calculation time.Materials and methodsThree different clinical cases as the lung, larynx, and prostate treated using VMAT technique were chosen. Plans were generated with Monaco? V5.11 TPS with 2% statistical uncertainty. By keeping all other parameters constant, plans were recalculated by varying SU, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and 5%. For plan evaluation, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), dose coverage to PTV, organ at risk (OAR) dose, normal tissue receiving dose ≥5 Gy and ≥10 Gy, integral dose (NTID), calculation time, gamma pass rate, calculation reproducibility and energy dependency were analyzed.ResultsCI and HI improve as SU increases from 0.5% to 5%. No significant dose difference was observed in dose coverage to PTV, OAR doses, normal tissue receiving dose ≥5 Gy and ≥10 Gy and NTID. Increase of SU showed decrease in calculation time, gamma pass rate and increase in PTV max dose. No dose difference was seen in calculation reproducibility and dependent on energy.ConclusionFor VMAT plans, SU can be accepted from 1% to 3% per plan with reduced calculation time without compromising plan quality and deliverability by accepting variations in point dose within the target.     

A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy

BackgroundThis study aimed to verify the dosimetric impact of Acuros XB (AXB) (AXB, Varian Medical Systems Palo Alto CA, USA), a two model-based algorithm, in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA ) calculations for prostate, head and neck and lung cancer treatment by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT ), without primary modification to AA. At present, the well-known and validated AA algorithm is clinically used in our department for VMAT treatments of different pathologies. AXB could replace it without extra measurements. The treatment result and accuracy of the dose delivered depend on the dose calculation algorithm.Materials and methodNinety-five complex VMAT plans for different pathologies were generated using the Eclipse version 15.0.4 treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated using AA and AXB (dose-to-water, AXB_w and dose-to-medium, AXB_m), with the same plan parameters for all VMAT plans. The dosimetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and involved organs at risk (OA R). The patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans has been verified by Octavius^®-4D phantom for different algorithms.ResultsThe relative differences among AA, AXB_w and AXB_m, with respect to prostate, head and neck were less than 1% for PTV D_95%. However, PTV D_95% calculated by AA tended to be overestimated, with a relative dose difference of 3.23% in the case of lung treatment. The absolute mean values of the relative differences were 1.1 ± 1.2% and 2.0 ± 1.2%, when comparing between AXB_w and AA, AXB_m and AA, respectively. The gamma pass rate was observed to exceed 97.4% and 99.4% for the measured and calculated doses in most cases of the volumetric 3D analysis for AA and AXB_m, respectively.ConclusionThis study suggests that the dose calculated to medium using AXB_m algorithm is better than AAA and it could be used clinically. Switching the dose calculation algorithm from AA to AXB does not require extra measurements.     

Improved error detection using a divided treatment plan in volume modulated arc therapy

AimWe sought to improve error detection ability during volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) by dividing and evaluating the treatment plan.BackgroundVMAT involves moving a beam source delivering radiation to tumor tissue through an arc, which significantly decreases treatment time. Treatment planning for VMAT involves many parameters. Quality assurance before treatment is a major focus of research.Materials and methodsWe used an established VMAT prostate treatment plan and divided it into 12° × 30° sections. In all the sections, only image data that generated errors in one segment and those that were integrally acquired were evaluated by a gamma analysis. This was done with five different patient plans.ResultsThe integrated image data resulting from errors in each section was 100% (tolerance 0.5 mm/0.5%) in the gamma analysis result in all image data. Division of the treatment plans produced a shift in the mean value of each gamma analysis in the cranial, left, and ventral directions of 94.59%, 98.83%, 96.58%, and the discrimination ability improved.ConclusionThe error discrimination ability was improved by dividing and verifying the portal imaging.     

Incorrect dosimetric leaf separation in IMRT and VMAT treatment planning: Clinical impact and correlation with pretreatment quality assurance

PurposeDynamic treatment planning algorithms use a dosimetric leaf separation (DLS) parameter to model the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) characteristics. Here, we quantify the dosimetric impact of an incorrect DLS parameter and investigate whether common pretreatment quality assurance (QA) methods can detect this effect.Methods16 treatment plans with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique for multiple treatment sites were calculated with a correct and incorrect setting of the DLS, corresponding to a MLC gap difference of 0.5 mm. Pretreatment verification QA was performed with a bi-planar diode array phantom and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Measurements were compared to the correct and incorrect planned doses using gamma evaluation with both global (G) and local (L) normalization. Correlation, specificity and sensitivity between the dose volume histogram (DVH) points for the planning target volume (PTV) and the gamma passing rates were calculated.ResultsThe change in PTV and organs at risk DVH parameters were 0.4–4.1%. Good correlation (>0.83) between the PTV_mean dose deviation and measured gamma passing rates was observed. Optimal gamma settings with 3%L/3 mm (per beam and composite plan) and 3%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the diode array phantom and 2%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the EPID system were found. Global normalization and per beam ROC analysis of the diode array phantom showed an area under the curve <0.6.ConclusionsA DLS error can worsen pretreatment QA using gamma analysis with reasonable credibility for the composite plan. A low detectability was demonstrated for a 3%G/3 mm per beam gamma setting.     

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for synchronous bilateral whole breast irradiation – A case study

PurposeThe treatment planning of bilateral breast irradiation (BBI) is a challenging task. The overlapping of tangential fields is usually unavoidable without compromising the target coverage. The purpose of this study was to investigate the technical feasibility and benefits of a single isocentre volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in BBI.Methods and materialsTwo women with bilateral breast cancer were included in this case study. The first patient (Pat#1) underwent a bilateral breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy. The second patient (Pat#2) underwent a bilateral ablation and axillary lymph node dissection. Planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at risk were delineated on CT images. VMAT plans were created with four (two for both sides, Pat#1) or two (one for each breast, Pat#2) separate VMAT fields. Subsequently, traditional tangential field plans were generated for each patient and the dosimetric parameters were compared.ResultsThe treatment times of the patients with VMAT were less than 15 min with daily CBCT imaging. When compared to the standard tangential field technique, the VMAT plans improved the PTV dose coverage and dose homogeneity with improved sparing of lungs and heart. With traditional field arrangement, the overlapping of the tangential fields was inevitable without significantly compromising the target coverage, whereas with VMAT the hotspots were avoided. The patients were treated with the VMAT technique and no acute skin toxicity was observed with either of the patients.ConclusionsA single isocentre VMAT technique has been implemented clinically for BBI. With the VMAT techniques, the dose delivery was quick and the hotspots in the field overlapping areas were avoided. The PTV dose coverage was superior in VMAT plans when compared with conventional tangential technique plans.     

Dosimetric sensitivity of leaf width on volumetric modulated arc therapy plan quality: an objective approach

BackgroundSeveral authors investigated a dosimetric impact of leaf width on radiotherapy plan quality subjectively, and concluded that thinner leaf-width multileaf collimators (MLC) are beneficial because of their better coverage of clinically relevant structures. Study aimed to investigate the dosimetric effect of MLC leaf width on volumetric modulated arc therapy plan quality by objective approach.Materials and methodsTwelve of each prostate and head-and-neck patients were planned for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments for MLC leaf widths of 4 mm and 10 mm. Three different VMAT schemes single-arc, dual-arc and two combined independent single-arcs were optimized. Dose volume histogram and Isodose distribution were used for quantitative and qualitative comparison of the treatment plan, respectively. Dose-volume-indices of the planning target volume, organs at risk and number of delivered monitor units were compared. The 4 mm leaf width being reference over 10 mm and results were noted as statistically significant if p ≤ 0.05 using student t-test.ResultsAll VMAT schemes for both tumor sites showed a gain in target coverage, similar organs at risk doses and higher monitor units to be delivered, when changing leaf width from 10 mm to 4 mm. The p-values were significant for majority of head-and-neck dose indices.ConclusionThe thinner-leaf MLCs, owing to their better spatial resolution, result in an overall gain for target coverage, while maintaining permissible doses to the organs at risk.     

Dosimetric comparison of conformal technique (3D) with volumetric modulated arc therapy with respect to doses obtained in the temporal lobe area in patients irradiated for brain meningioma

AimThe aim of the analysis was to compare doses obtained for temporal lobes in patients being irradiated for meningiomas of the brain using the conformal technique and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We try to answer the question whether the application of VMAT would lead to higher doses within temporal lobes.BackgroundIn recent years a significant increase in the detection of meningiomas and effectiveness of treatment has been observed. Hence quality of life should be considered as an important aspect after a treatment course.Materials and methodsTreatment plans of 27 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy procedures were carried out from 2007 until 2016 at the Department of Radiation Oncology in Wroclaw, Poland. For individual patients, alternative treatment plans were generated in relation to the ones originally used, wherein from dynamic techniques, volumetric modulated arc therapy was selected for analysis. Evaluated dosimetric parameters for temporal lobes were: mean dose, V10 Gy, V20 Gy, V45 Gy.ResultsStatistically significant differences were observed for V45 Gy for both temporal lobes (p = 0.023) and for V45 Gy for the right (p = 0.001) and the left temporal lobe (p = 0.016) considered for VMAT. The mean values of the V45 Gy for both temporal lobes, for the right temporal lobe and for the left temporal lobe were lower for VMAT than for 3D, respectively: 7.54% and 7.90%, 6.82% and 9.47%, 5.67% and 7.14%.Analysis of the remaining results found no statistical differences.ConclusionApplication of VMAT in patients treated for meningioma of the brain is not related to higher doses of radiation in the temporal lobe area, compared with the conformal technique.     

Hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy for chest wall irradiation: For a good plan,get the right mixture

PurposeTo find the optimal dose weighting for hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT), a combination of conventional 3DCRT and VMAT plans for left sided chest wall and supraclavicular radiation therapy.Methods & materials20 left-sided breast cancer patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy were considered for this study. To find the optimal weighting, 5 H-VMAT plans were generated for each study case by combining different dose proportions of 3DCRT and VMAT plans including: 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT, 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT, 60% 3DCRT/40% VMAT, 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT. Further field-in-field, optimal H-VMAT and VMAT alone plans were compared.ResultsAll H-VMAT plans achieved the expected target coverage. A higher conformity index was achieved for 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT plan, while better homogeneity index was achieved for 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT plan. Mean and low doses were less in 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT plan. Compared with other proportions, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT and 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT weighted H-VMAT plans achieved balanced results for PTVs and OARs.ConclusionThe optimal dose mixture for H-VMAT technique is 70% to 80% for 3DCRT and 20% to 30% for VMAT. The optimal H-VMAT achieved balanced results for the PTVs and OARs compared with field-in-field and VMAT alone plans.