Development of Novel Treatment Plan Verification Techniques for Prostate Intensity Modulation Arc Therapy

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wu Liu
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Intensity Modulation ◽  
Novel Treatment ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Verification Techniques

Trajectory modulated arc therapy using quasi-continuous couch motion layered on top of volumetric modulated arc therapy in left breast and chest wall irradiation: a feasibility study

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Biplab Sarkar ◽  
Anirudh Pradhan
Keyword(s):  
Chest Wall ◽  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Left Breast ◽  
Left Chest ◽  
Heart Dose ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Prescription Dose ◽  
The Difference

AbstractAimTo investigate the dosimetric advantage of quasi-continuous couch motion-enabled trajectory modulated arc radiotherapy therapy (TMAT) over the coplanar tangential partial arcs volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for treating left breast and chest wall patients.MethodTreatment plans of 43 patients who received radiotherapy for left breast (17) or for left chest wall (26) using coplanar partial tangential arcs VMAT (reference plan) were considered for this study. For each patient, in addition to the treatment plan, a TMAT plan was also generated using quasi-continuous couch rotation. The TMAT plan consisted of original two 30° tangential arc beams and two supplementary beams having a couch rotation of ±10°, ±20° and ±30°, respectively. The difference in PTV volume coverage (PTV V95%) between TMAT plan and VMAT plan was calculated for all the cases and normalised to the plan’s prescription dose. Similarly, differences in PTV_V105% and several dose-volume parameters related to organs at risk (OAR) were also computed and tabulated.ResultTMAT shows an increment in the PTV dose coverage V95% with respect to reference plan by 4·7±2·5% when averaged overall prescription dose levels. Mean PTV dose (averaged overall prescription levels) for reference and TMAT plan was 4638·6±423·8 and 4793·5±447·2 cGy, respectively, and statistically insignificant (p=0·06). However mean PTV_V105% values for TMAT and for reference plans were 6·7±4·8 and 7·2±5·2%, respectively, and were not statistically different (p=0·85). Mean heart dose in TMAT was less than in VMAT plans, but not significantly. As regarding D1% to heart, TMAT plan was again found to be better with a mean difference of 137·1 cGy over VMAT plan. Other parameters evaluated were: mean dose and D1% to contralateral breast, and V20 Gy and V5 Gy for lung.ConclusionTMAT plans were found to be better than VMAT plans in terms of PTV coverage and D1% for heart. For evaluated dose parameters apart from PTV coverage and D1% to the heart, no significant differences were observed. Thus, TMAT plans yielded better dose distribution in terms of PTV dose coverage, hot spots and OAR doses.

Arc therapy for total body irradiation – A robust novel treatment technique for standard treatment rooms

2014 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anika Jahnke ◽  
Lennart Jahnke ◽  
Flavia Molina-Duran ◽  
Michael Ehmann ◽  
Steffi Kantz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Body Irradiation ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Novel Treatment ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Total Body

scholarly journals Validation of the relative insensitivity of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan quality to gantry space resolution

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 579-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghulam Murtaza ◽  
Stefania Cora ◽  
Ehsan Ullah Khan
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Optimization Techniques ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Single Arc

Abstract Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is an efficient form of radiotherapy used to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy beams. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative insensitivity of VMAT plan quality to gantry angle spacing (GS). Most previous VMAT planning and dosimetric work for GS resolution has been conducted for single arc VMAT. In this work, a quantitative comparison of dose–volume indices (DIs) was made for partial-, single- and double-arc VMAT plans optimized at 2°, 3° and 4° GS, representing a large variation in deliverable multileaf collimator segments. VMAT plans of six prostate cancer and six head-and-neck cancer patients were simulated for an Elekta SynergyS® Linac (Elekta Ltd, Crawley, UK), using the SmartArc™ module of Pinnacle³ TPS, (version 9.2, Philips Healthcare). All optimization techniques generated clinically acceptable VMAT plans, except for the single-arc for the head-and-neck cancer patients. Plan quality was assessed by comparing the DIs for the planning target volume, organs at risk and normal tissue. A GS of 2°, with finest resolution and consequently highest intensity modulation, was considered to be the reference, and this was compared with GS 3° and 4°. The differences between the majority of reference DIs and compared DIs were <2%. The metrics, such as treatment plan optimization time and pretreatment (phantom) dosimetric calculation time, supported the use of a GS of 4°. The ArcCHECK™ phantom–measured dosimetric agreement verifications resulted in a >95.0% passing rate, using the criteria for γ (3%, 3 mm). In conclusion, a GS of 4° is an optimal choice for minimal usage of planning resources without compromise of plan quality.

Beam complexity and monitor unit efficiency comparison in two different volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery using automated planning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengqiang Li ◽  
Cheng Tao ◽  
Tong Bai ◽  
Zhenjiang Li ◽  
Ying Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Efficiency Comparison ◽  
Beam Complexity

Abstract Background: To investigate the beam complexity and monitor unit（MU）efficiency issues for two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery technologies for patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: Twelve left-sided BC and seven NPC cases were enrolled in this study. Each delivered treatment plan was optimized in Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system with Auto-Planning module for Trilogy and Synergy systems. Similar planning dose objectives and beam configuration were used for each site in two different delivery systems to produce clinically acceptable plans. Beam complexity was evaluated in terms of segment area(SA), segment width(SW), leaf sequence variability(LSV), aperture area variability(AAV), modulation complexity score(MCS) based on MLC sequence and MU. Results: With similar plan quality, the average SAs for Trilogy plans were smaller than those for Synergy plans: 55.5 ± 21.3 cm 2 vs. 66.3 ± 17.9 cm 2 (p<0.05) for the NPC cases, and 100.7 ± 49.2 cm 2 vs. 108.5 ± 42.7 cm 2 (p<0.05) for BC cases, respectively. The SW was statistically significant for two delivery systems (NPC: 6.87±1.95cm vs.6.72±2.71cm, p < 0.05; BC: 8.84±2.56cm vs.8.09±2.63cm, p < 0.05). LSV was statistically significant smaller for Trilogy (NPC: 0.84±0.033 vs.0.86±0.033, p < 0.05; BC: 0.89±0.026 vs.0.90±0.26, p < 0.05). The mean AAV was statistically significant larger for Trilogy than Synergy (NPC: 0.18±0.064 vs.0.14±0.037, p < 0.05; BC: 0.46±0.15 vs.0.33±0.13, p < 0.05). The MCS values for the Trilogy were higher than those for the Synergy: 0.14 ± 0.016vs. 0.12 ± 0.017 (p<0.05) for the NPC cases, and 0.42 ± 0.106 vs. 0.30 ± 0.087(p<0.05) for the BC cases. Compared with Synergy plans, the average MU for Trilogy plans were larger: 828.6±74.1MU and 782.9±85.2MU (p>0.05) for the NPC cases, and 444.8±61.3MU and 393.8±75.3MU (p>0.05) for the BC cases. Conclusions: The pinnacle 3 Auto planning system can optimize BC and NPC plans to obtain the same plan quality using Trilogy and Synergy systems. We found that this two systems resulted in different SA, SW, LSV, AAV and MCS. As a result, we suggested that beam complexity should be considered in providing further methodologies while optimizing VMAT auto planning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document