Stereotactic radiation treatment planning with volumetric modulated arc therapy: Impact of duodenal sparing on pancreatic tumor coverage.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 301-301
Author(s):  
R. Kumar ◽  
J. Kang ◽  
J. M. Herman ◽  
R. Tuli ◽  
T. M. Pawlik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Stereotactic Radiation ◽  
Radiation Delivery ◽  
Delivery Times ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
The Difference

301 Background: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allows for intensity-modulated radiation delivery with faster treatment times and fewer delivered monitor units (MU). The dose-limiting structure for pancreatic stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is the duodenum. We evaluate VMAT dose distribution, delivery times, and the effect of duodenal sparing (DS) for pancreas SBRT. Methods: Plans of 15 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer (14 head/1 tail) were selected. VMAT treatment planning with the “SmartArc” function of Pinnacle v. 8.9 was used to plan one fraction of 25 Gy to the PTV (gross tumor + 2 mm expansion) normalized to the 80% isodose line. Two VMAT SBRT plans were conducted for each case; the first did not attempt to spare the duodenum (non DS) while the second did (DS). Constraints were stomach/duodenum any point max <30 Gy (for DS plan), liver D50 < 5 Gy, ipsilateral kidney D25 < 5 Gy, cord Dmax < 5 Gy and stomach D4 < 22.5 Gy. Results: Gross tumor volume ranged from 58.4cm3 to 320.3 cm3. The average overlap volume between PTV and the duodenum was 8.4 cm3. In 10/15 non-DS plans, the duodenal Dmax exceeded 30 Gy. With DS optimization, only 1/15 plans exceeded the 30 Gy threshold. These differences were statistically significant (p<0.001). Typical MU and delivery times, as calculated by the planning software, were 5494 MU and 775 secs vs. 5296 MU and 703 secs for the DS and non-DS plans, respectively. The difference in delivery times was significant (p=0.01), but amounted to only 1.2 min on average. The average duodenal Dmax for non-DS plans was 30.4Gy, D4% was 23.4 Gy. With DS, the average Dmax was reduced to 28.1Gy and D4% to <19.7 Gy (p<0.001). As expected, VMAT plans with greater overlap between the duodenum and PTV had a higher duodenal Dmax. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of VMAT for high-dose SBRT treatment of pancreatic cancer incorporating constraints to limit the dose to the duodenum. Future studies will evaluate whether VMAT with fractionated SBRT results in improved duodenal sparing more efficiently than traditional IMRT. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Positional repeatability and variation in internal and external markers during volumetric-modulated arc therapy under end-exhalation breath-hold conditions for pancreatic cancer patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 755-765
Author(s):  
Makoto Sasaki ◽  
Mitsuhiro Nakamura ◽  
Tomohiro Ono ◽  
Ryo Ashida ◽  
Michio Yoshimura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Reference Position ◽  
Marker Position ◽  
Positional Variation ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Internal Marker

Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess the positional repeatability of internal and external markers among multiple breath-hold (BH) sessions and evaluate the positional variation of these markers within BH sessions for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for pancreatic cancer patients. A total of 13 consecutive pancreatic cancer patients with an internal marker were enrolled. Single full-arc coplanar VMAT was delivered under end-exhalation BH conditions while monitoring the internal marker with kilovoltage (kV) X-ray fluoroscopy. Positional repeatability of the internal and external markers was determined by the difference between the reference and zero position in all BH sessions, and positional variation was defined by the displacement from the reference position in each BH session during megavolt beam delivery. The overall positional repeatability was 0.6 ± 1.5 mm in the X-axis for the centroid of the internal marker (CoIM), −0.1 ± 2.2 mm in the Y-axis for the CoIM, and 0.8 ± 2.2 mm for the external marker. The frequency of an internal marker position appearing &gt; 2 mm from the reference position in the Y-axis, despite the external marker position being ≤2 mm from the reference position, ranged from 0.0 to 39.9% for each patient. Meanwhile, the proportion of sessions with positional variation ≤2 mm was 93.2 and 98.7% for the CoIM and external marker, respectively. External marker motion can be used as a surrogate for pancreatic tumor motion during BH-VMAT delivery; however, margins of ~5 mm were required to ensure positional repeatability.

scholarly journals Treatment planning comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with Trilogy and Halcyon for bilateral breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Sun ◽  
Xiutong Lin ◽  
Guifang Zhang ◽  
Qingtao Qiu ◽  
Chengqiang Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Bilateral Breast Cancer ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Skin Dose ◽  
Delivery Time ◽  
Dose Volume ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background: The Halcyon is a new machine from the Varian company. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetry of the Halcyon in treatment of bilateral breast cancer with volumetric modulated arc therapy. Methods: On CT images of 10 patients with bilateral breast cancer, four Halcyon plans with different setup fields were generated, and dosimetric comparisons using Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test were conducted among the four plans. Whole and partial arc plans on the Trilogy and the Halcyon, referred to as T-4arc, T-8arc, H-4arc and H-8arc, were designed. The prescription dose was 50 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. All plans were designed with the Eclipse version 15.5 treatment planning system. The dosimetric differences between whole and partial arc plans in the same accelerator were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The better Halcyon plan was selected for the further dosimetric comparison of the plan quality and delivery efficiency between the Trilogy and the Halcyon. Results:Halcyon plans with high‐quality megavoltage cone beam CT setup fields increased the Dmean, D2 and V107 of the planning target volume (PTV) and the V5 and Dmean of the heart, left ventricle (LV) and lungs compared with other Halcyon setup plans. The mean dose and low dose volume of the heart, lungs and liver were significantly decreased in T-8arc plans compared to T-4arc plans. In terms of the V5, V20, V30, V40 and Dmean of the heart, the V20, V30, V40 and Dmean of the LV, the V30, V40, Dmax and Dmean of the left anterior descending artery (LAD), and the V5 and V40 of lungs, H-8arc was significantly higher than H-4arc (p<0.05). Compared with the Trilogy’s plans, the Halcyon’s plans reduced the high-dose volume of the heart and LV but increased the mean dose of the heart. For the dose of the LAD and the V20 and V30 of lungs, there was no significant difference between the two accelerators. Compared with the Trilogy, plans on the Halcyon significantly increased the skin dose but also significantly reduced the delivery time. Conclusion: For the Halcyon, the whole-arc plans have more dosimetric advantages than partial-arc plans in bilateral breast cancer radiotherapy. Although the mean dose of the heart and the skin dose are increased, the doses of the cardiac substructure and other OARs are comparable to the Trilogy, and the delivery time is significantly reduced.

Quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy head and neck cancer treatment using PRESAGE® dosimeter

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalil ur Rehman ◽  
Muhammad Isa ◽  
Nisar Ahmad ◽  
H. M. Noor ul Huda Khan Asghar ◽  
Zaheer A. Gilani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Ct Scans ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Calculated Dose

AbstractBackgroundAccurate three-dimensional dosimetry is essential in modern radiotherapy techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In this research work, the PRESAGE® dosimeter was used as quality assurance (QA) tool for VMAT planning for head and neck (H&N) cancer.Material and methodComputer tomography (CT) scans of an Image Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) H&N anthropomorphic phantom with both IROC standard insert and PRESAGE® insert were acquired separately. Both CT scans were imported into the Pinnacle (9.4 version) TPS for treatment planning, where the structures [planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk) and thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) were manually contoured and used to optimise a VMAT plan. Treatment planning was done using VMAT (dual arc: 182°–178°, 178°–182°). Beam profile comparisons and gamma analysis were used to quantify agreement with film, PRESAGE® measurement and treatment planning system (TPS) calculated dose distribution.ResultsThe average ratio of TLD measured to calculated doses at the four PTV locations in the H&N phantom were between 0·95 to 0·99 for all three VMAT deliveries. Dose profiles were taken along the left–right, the anterior–posterior and superior–inferior axes, and good agreement was found between the PRESAGE® and Pinnacle profile. The mean value of gamma results for three VMAT deliveries in axial and sagittal planes were found to be 94·24 and 93·16% when compared with film and Pinnacle, respectively. The average values comparing the PRESAGE® results and dose values calculated on Pinnacle were observed to be 95·29 and 94·38% in the said planes, respectively, using a 5%/3 mm gamma criteria.ConclusionThe PRESAGE® dose measurements and calculated dose of pinnacle show reasonable agreement in both axial and sagittal planes for complex dual arc VMAT treatment plans. In general, the PRESAGE® dosimeter is found to be a feasible QA tool of VMAT plan for H&N cancer treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document