Two-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy to provide dosimetric advantages for pancreas stereotactic body radiotherapy.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 445-445
Author(s):  
Jason K Molitoris ◽  
Christopher Brown ◽  
Shifeng Chen ◽  
Kimberly Marter ◽  
Kristin Spaeth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Normal Tissue ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Target Coverage ◽  
Delivery Time ◽  
Arc Therapy

445 Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy(SBRT) is increasingly used in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). SBRT can be delivered using 3D conformal, static intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. Prior data suggest advantages of using VMAT over IMRT for single-fraction pancreas SBRT. We performed the first dosimetric comparison of IMRT with one and two arc VMAT for 5-fraction pancreas SBRT, a more commonly used regimen. Methods: We generated 5-fraction SBRT plans for 12 LAPC patients who were previously treated at our institution with standard fractionation. The prescription dose was 33 Gy delivered in 6.6 Gy fractions. Assuming breath hold, 3 plans were generated for each patient: 9-beam static IMRT, 1-arc VMAT (VMAT1), and 2-arc VMAT (VMAT2) targeting the primary tumor. Target coverage and normal tissue doses were compared between the delivery techniques. Results: Each plan met target coverage planning goals. More VMAT2 plans (100%) were able to meet all normal tissue constraints than VMAT1 (83.3%) or IMRT (75%). Duodenal dose was most lowest for VMAT2 compared to VMAT1 and IMRT for mean dose (8.66 vs. 9.00 vs. 8.99 Gy); D4% (25.9 vs. 26.6 vs. 26.3 Gy); V10Gy (38.02 vs. 39.33 vs. 40.11%), V15Gy (23.98 vs. 25.88 vs. 25.97%), V20Gy (12.73 vs. 13.84 vs. 14.95%), and V25Gy (5.96 vs. 6.85 vs. 6.78%)(all p < 0.05). The tumors closest to the duodenum had statistically significantly improved V30Gy for VMAT2 compared to VMAT1 and IMRT (both p < 0.001). VMAT1 and VMAT2 reduced dose to the stomach, spinal cord, and liver compared to IMRT; kidney dose, however, was lowest using IMRT. VMAT2 plans had the highest conformity, but required the most monitor units to deliver. Delivery time was significantly longer with IMRT, compared to VMAT1 and VMAT2 (8.25 vs. 2.16 vs. 3.33 mins). Conclusions: These data suggest that VMAT2 should be strongly considered for 5-fraction pancreas SBRT because of superior normal tissue sparing, more conformal target volume coverage, and faster treatment delivery time (compared to IMRT). Further evaluation is needed to clarify whether the dosimetric advantages of VMAT2 are clinically significant.

Is 5 mm breath-hold window (BHW) sufficient to treat carcinoma left breast patients post-conservative surgery: a comparative study using forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Karthikeyan Kalyanasundaram ◽  
Subramani Vellaiyan
Keyword(s):  
Breathing Pattern ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Conservative Surgery ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Left Breast ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Deep Inspiration ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of changes in breathing pattern inside the breath-hold window (BHW) during deep inspiration breath hold treatment for carcinoma left breast patients post-conservative surgery. Methods: Ten patients of carcinoma left breast post-conservative surgery were prospectively selected. Three sets of CT plain images were acquired, one with 5 mm deep inspiration BHW (DIBHR) and the other one with 1 mm BHW matching the lower threshold (DIBHL) and the third one with 1 mm BHW matching the upper threshold (DIBHH) as DIBHR. For all patients, forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated in the 5 mm BHW CT series and the same plan being copy and pasted in other series. Target volume doses and critical structure doses were tabulated. Results: Planning target volume coverage was adequate and no significant differences were found in any CT series. Significant differences noted in average left lung V5%, V10% and V18% doses between DIBHR versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0461, 0·0283 and 0·0213, respectively) and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0434, 0·0484 and 0·0334, respectively) for FIMRT plans and V18% doses in DIBHR versus DIBHH (p = 0·0067) in VMAT. No differences in heart and apex of heart doses were found. Left anterior descending artery (LAD) mean doses were significant in DIBHL versus DIBHR, DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0012, 0·0444 and 0·0048, respectively) series for FIMRT plans and DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0341, 0·0001) for VMAT plans. Finding: The changes in the breathing pattern inside DIBH window level cause some variation in LAD doses and no other significant differences in any parameters noted, so care should be taken while treating patients with preexisting cardiac conditions.

Which simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique is dosimetrically superior in the treatment of breast cancer; volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or fixed field (ff) IMRT?

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-279
Author(s):  
Steven B. D. Murphy ◽  
Heather Drury-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Hybrid Technique ◽  
Fixed Field ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Concomitant Boost ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Integrated Boost

AbstractBackground and purposeTo determine which concomitant boost technique is dosimetrically superior in the treatment of breast cancer; volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or fixed field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ff-IMRT).Materials and methodsIn total, 30 breast patients were re-planned with both VMAT and fixed field concomitant boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques. A hybrid technique was used delivering 80% of the dose through tangential beams and 20% through an integrated boost. A two-tailed t-test sample for means was used to compare the dosimetric differences between the techniques.ResultsMaximum dose was statistically lower for VMAT; 103·2 versus 103·7% for ff-IMRT along with statistically lower V2 Gy doses to the contralateral lung (0·7 versus 1·6%) and heart for both left- (19·0%/22·6%), and right- (5·5%/8·8%) sided patients, respectively. ff-IMRT boasted significantly lower ipsilateral lung V20, V18 and V10 Gy (7·9/8·6/13·1 versus 8·1/8·8/13·4%) than VMAT, respectively. No differences were found with minimum coverage, mean dose and V5 Gy to all organs at risk (OARs).ConclusionVMAT and ff-IMRT techniques demonstrate excellent target coverage and OAR sparing facilitated by the hybrid planning technique and deep inspiration breath hold. There is no obvious dosimetrically superior option between the two techniques. Reduced treatment times with VMAT make it more desirable to implement clinically.

scholarly journals Od 2D do DIBH, przegląd technik radioterapeutycznych stosowanych w napromienianiu nowotworów piersi From 2D to DIBH, review of radiotherapeutic techniques related to irradiation of breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Charmacińska ◽  
Sara Styś ◽  
Olga Bąk ◽  
Weronika Kijeska ◽  
Agnieszka Skrobała
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Deep Inspiration ◽  
Deep Inspiration Breath Hold ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy

Nowotwór piersi jest to nowotwór złośliwy powstający z komórek gruczołu piersiowego, który rozwija się miejscowo w piersi oraz daje przerzuty do węzłów chłonnych i narządów wewnętrznych (płuc, wątroby, kości i mózgu). Ponad 23% zachorowań na nowotwory kobiet w Polsce, jak i na świecie stanowią nowotwory piersi. Na przestrzeni ostatnich lat techniki napromieniania nowotworów piersi ulegają ciągłemu rozwojowi. Celem pracy było poglądowe przedstawienie technik radioterapeutycznych stosowanych w napromienianiu nowotworów piersi, od dwuwymiarowej 2D techniki statycznej poprzez techniki dynamiczne (IMRT technika z modulacją intensywnością dawki (ang. intensity modulated radiation therapy), VMAT technika obrotowa z modulacją intensywności dawki (ang. volumetric modulated arc therapy), aż do techniki DIBH techniki napromieniania na głębokim wstrzymanym wdechu (ang. deep inspiration breath hold). W pracy skupiono się na przedstawieniu realizacji omawianych technik i opisie jak dana technika wpływa na rozkład dawki w planowanej objętości do napromieniania PTV (ang. Planning Target Volume) oraz na dawki w narządach krytycznych w radioterapii nowotworów piersi.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a dosimetric comparison with dynamic IMRT and step-and-shoot IMRT

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Payal Raina ◽  
Sudha Singh ◽  
Rajanigandha Tudu ◽  
Rashmi Singh ◽  
Anup Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Conformity Index ◽  
Delivery Time ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Step And Shoot

AbstractAim:The aim of this study was to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (dIMRT) and step-and-shoot IMRT (ssIMRT) for different treatment sites.Materials and methods:Twelve patients were selected for the planning comparison study. This included three head and neck, three brain, three rectal and three cervical cancer patients. Total dose of 50 Gy was given for all the plans. Plans were done for Elekta synergy with Monaco treatment planning system. All plans were generated with 6 MV photons beam. Plan evaluation was based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram, dose homogeneity index, conformity index and radiation delivery time, and monitor unit needs to deliver the prescribed dose.Results:The VMAT and dIMRT plans achieved the better conformity (CI98% = 0·965 ± 0·023) and (CI98% = 0·939 ± 0·01), respectively, while ssIMRT plans were slightly inferior (CI98% = 0·901 ± 0·038). The inhomogeneity in the planning target volume (PTV) was highest with ssIMRT with HI equal to 0·097 ± 0·015 when compared to VMAT with HI equal to 0·092 ± 0·0369 and 0·095 ± 0·023 with dIMRT. The integral dose is found to be inferior with VMAT 105·31 ± 53·6 (Gy L) when compared with dIMRT 110·75 ± 52·9 (Gy L) and ssIMRT 115 38 ± 55·1(Gy L). All the techniques respected the planning objective for all organs at risk. The delivery time per fraction for VMAT was much lower than dIMRT and ssIMRT.Findings:Our results indicate that dIMRT and VMAT provide better sparing of normal tissue, homogeneity and conformity than ssIMRT with reduced treatment delivery time.

scholarly journals A Hybrid IMRT/VMAT Technique for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nan Zhao ◽  
Ruijie Yang ◽  
Yuliang Jiang ◽  
Suqing Tian ◽  
Fuxin Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Delivery Time ◽  
Target Dose ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Dose Homogeneity ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Delivery Efficiency

Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique which combined intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) was developed for the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Two-full-arc VMAT (2ARC-VMAT), 9-field IMRT (9F-IMRT), and Hybrid IMRT/VMAT plans for NPC were compared in terms of the dosimetric quality, sparing of organs at risk (OARs), and delivery efficiency. The Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique can improve the target dose homogeneity and conformity compared with 9F-IMRT and 2ARC-VMAT. It can reduce the dose delivered to the TMJ, mandible, temporal lobe, and unspecified tissue with fewer MUs compared with 9F-IMRT and dose delivered to parotids, brainstem, and spinal cord compared with 2ARC-VMAT technique. The mean delivery time of Hybrid plans was shorter than that of 9F-IMRT plans (408 s versus 812 s;P=0.00) and longer than that of 2ARC-VMAT plans (408 s versus 179 s;P=0.00). Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique could be a viable radiotherapy technique with better plan quality.

Monte Carlo (MC)-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in locally advanced esophageal cancer with potential for dose escalation.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 77-77
Author(s):  
Shaakir Hasan ◽  
Anil Sethi ◽  
Jennifer Breunig ◽  
Gabriel Axelrud ◽  
William Small ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Conformal Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Target Dose ◽  
Treatment Techniques ◽  
Prescription Dose

77 Background: Previous attempts at dose escalation in esophagus radiotherapy (RT), mostly based on older planning techniques, have not shown improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate the importance of newer, sophisticated dose algorithms and treatment techniques in escalating target dose and reducing dose to organs at risk (OAR). Methods: Treatment plans for 10 patients were retrospectively evaluated using 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), MC based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and VMAT. Prescription dose was 45 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) in 25 fractions followed by a 5.4 Gy boost in 3 fractions. PTV (mean±s.d. = 681±236 cc) were planned with BrainLab iPlan 4.1 software as IMRT and VMAT. Dose distributions were calculated with both pencil beam (PB) and MC algorithms. Each PTV was normalized to receive at least 95% of 50.4 Gy or 60 Gy dose. OARs were evaluated as per RTOG1010 dose guidelines. Paired t-tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: IMRT vs. 3DCRT PTV 50.4 Gy: IMRT plans decreased heart and lung average Dmean by 4.7 Gy (p = 0.053) and 1.9 Gy (p = 0.001) respectively when compared to 3DCRT. In addition, average values of lung V5, V10, and V30 also reduced by 7.1%, 5.5%, and 3.6% respectively (p < 0.05). There was a 12.1% decrease in heart V40 (p=0.053) and 3.7% reduction in liver V30 (p=0.08). PTV 60Gy: IMRT plans at 60 Gy led to lower OAR doses compared to 3DCRT at 50.4 Gy. MC based IMRT results did not significantly differ from PB, with the exception of lung V5 which was 4.4% higher (p <0.001). VMAT vs. IMRT PTV 50.4 Gy: VMAT based planning, compared to IMRT, lowered V20 (3.4%, p=0.029), V30 (1.6%, p = 0.013), and spinal cord Dmax (5.4 Gy, p = 0.001). However, lung Dmean, V5, and V10 increased by 1.2 Gy, 11.7%, 16.7% respectively (p < 0.001). PTV 60 Gy: With VMAT planning, all OAR dose parameters were within the RTOG 1010 limits, although lung V5 and V10 exceeded acceptable limits by 1.6% and 2.6% respectively. Conclusions: Compared to 3DCRT, target dose escalation with IMRT and VMAT is possible with improved OAR dose sparing, as evaluated with MC algorithms. Increased dose values for V5 and V10 as seen in MC based VMAT plans call for reassessment of RTOG 1010 guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document