28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this study is to assess the suitability of 5 mm millennium multileaf collimator (MMLC) for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)‐based lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Thirty lung SBRT patient treatment plans along with their planning target volumes (ranging from 2.01 cc to 150.11 cc) were transferred to an inhomogeneous lung phantom and retrospectively planned using VMAT technique, along with the high definition multileaf collimator (HDMLC) and MMLC systems. The plans were evaluated using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG‐0813) treatment planning criteria for target coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiency for both the MMLC and HDMLC systems using flat and flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams. Irrespective of the target volumes, both the MLC systems were able to satisfy the RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria without having any major deviation. Dose conformity was marginally better with HDMLC. The average conformity index (CI) value was found to be 1.069 ± 0.034 and 1.075 ± 0.0380 for HDMLC and MMLC plans, respectively. For the 6 MV FFF beams, the plan was slightly more conformal, with the average CI values of 1.063 ± 0.029 and 1.073 ± 0.033 for the HDMLC and MMLC plans, respectively. The high dose spillage was the maximum for 2 cc volume set (3% for HDMLC and 3.1% for MMLC). In the case of low dose spillage, both the MLCs were within the protocol of no deviation, except for the 2 cc volume set. The results from this study revealed that VMAT‐based lung SBRT using 5 mm MMLC satisfies the RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for the studied target size and shapes.

          PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly, 87.53D, 87.56.jk

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Extracranial stereotactic radioablation: results of a phase I study in medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

          Surgical resection is standard therapy for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however, many patients are medically inoperable. We set out to investigate a new therapy akin to brain radiosurgery called extracranial stereotactic radioablation (ESR) in a phase I trial. Eligible patients included those with clinically staged T1 or T2 (tumor size, < or = 7 cm) N0M0 biopsy confirmed NSCLC. All patients had comorbid medical problems that precluded thoracotomy. The median age was 75 years, and the median Karnofsky performance status was 80. ESR was administered in three separate fractions over 2 weeks. Three to five patients were treated within each dose cohort starting at 800 cGy per fraction (total, 2,400 cGy) followed by successive dose escalations of 200 cGy per fraction (total increase per cohort, 600 cGy). Waiting periods occurred between dose cohorts to observe toxicity. Patients with T1 vs T2 tumors underwent separate independent dose escalations. A total of 37 patients were enrolled since February 2000. One patient experienced grade 3 pneumonitis, and another patient had grade 3 hypoxia. For the entire population, there was no appreciable decline in cardiopulmonary function as measured by symptoms, physical examination, need for oxygen supplementation, pulmonary function testing, arterial blood gas determinations, or regular chest imaging. Both T-stage groups ultimately reached and tolerated 2,000 cGy per fraction for three fractions (total, 6,000 cGy). The maximum tolerated dose for this therapy in either T-stage group has yet to be reached. Tumors responded to treatment in 87% of patients (complete response, 27%). After a median follow-up period of 15.2 months, six patients experienced local failure, all of whom had received doses of < 1,800 cGy per fraction. Very high radiation dose treatments were tolerated in this population of medically inoperable patients with stage I NSCLC using ESR techniques.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model-based convolution methods in heterogeneous media.

            The deterministic Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was recently implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system. The goal of this study was to compare AXB performance to Monte Carlo (MC) and two standard clinical convolution methods: the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the collapsed-cone convolution (CCC) method. Homogeneous water and multilayer slab virtual phantoms were used for this study. The multilayer slab phantom had three different materials, representing soft tissue, bone, and lung. Depth dose and lateral dose profiles from AXB v10 in Eclipse were compared to AAA v10 in Eclipse, CCC in Pinnacle3, and EGSnrc MC simulations for 6 and 18 MV photon beams with open fields for both phantoms. In order to further reveal the dosimetric differences between AXB and AAA or CCC, three-dimensional (3D) gamma index analyses were conducted in slab regions and subregions defined by AAPM Task Group 53. The AXB calculations were found to be closer to MC than both AAA and CCC for all the investigated plans, especially in bone and lung regions. The average differences of depth dose profiles between MC and AXB, AAA, or CCC was within 1.1, 4.4, and 2.2%, respectively, for all fields and energies. More specifically, those differences in bone region were up to 1.1, 6.4, and 1.6%; in lung region were up to 0.9, 11.6, and 4.5% for AXB, AAA, and CCC, respectively. AXB was also found to have better dose predictions than AAA and CCC at the tissue interfaces where backscatter occurs. 3D gamma index analyses (percent of dose voxels passing a 2%/2 mm criterion) showed that the dose differences between AAA and AXB are significant (under 60% passed) in the bone region for all field sizes of 6 MV and in the lung region for most of field sizes of both energies. The difference between AXB and CCC was generally small (over 90% passed) except in the lung region for 18 MV 10 x 10 cm2 fields (over 26% passed) and in the bone region for 5 x 5 and 10 x 10 cm2 fields (over 64% passed). With the criterion relaxed to 5%/2 mm, the pass rates were over 90% for both AAA and CCC relative to AXB for all energies and fields, with the exception of AAA 18 MV 2.5 x 2.5 cm2 field, which still did not pass. In heterogeneous media, AXB dose prediction ability appears to be comparable to MC and superior to current clinical convolution methods. The dose differences between AXB and AAA or CCC are mainly in the bone, lung, and interface regions. The spatial distributions of these differences depend on the field sizes and energies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Volumetric-modulated arc therapy for stereotactic body radiotherapy of lung tumors: a comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques.

              To demonstrate the potential of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques with a limited number of segments for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for early-stage lung cancer. For a random selection of 27 patients eligible for SBRT, coplanar and noncoplanar IMRT and coplanar VMAT (using SmartArc) treatment plans were generated in Pinnacle(3) and compared. In addition, film measurements were performed using an anthropomorphic phantom to evaluate the skin dose for the different treatment techniques. Using VMAT, the delivery times could be reduced to an average of 6.6 min compared with 23.7 min with noncoplanar IMRT. The mean dose to the healthy lung was 4.1 Gy for VMAT and noncoplanar IMRT and 4.2 Gy for coplanar IMRT. The volume of healthy lung receiving>5 Gy and >20 Gy was 18.0% and 5.4% for VMAT, 18.5% and 5.0% for noncoplanar IMRT, and 19.4% and 5.7% for coplanar IMRT, respectively. The dose conformity at 100% and 50% of the prescribed dose of 54 Gy was 1.13 and 5.17 for VMAT, 1.11 and 4.80 for noncoplanar IMRT and 1.12 and 5.31 for coplanar IMRT, respectively. The measured skin doses were comparable for VMAT and noncoplanar IMRT and slightly greater for coplanar IMRT. Coplanar VMAT for SBRT for early-stage lung cancer achieved plan quality and skin dose levels comparable to those using noncoplanar IMRT and slightly better than those with coplanar IMRT. In addition, the delivery time could be reduced by ≤70% with VMAT. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                saishanmugam@rediffmail.com
                Journal
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                10.1002/(ISSN)1526-9914
                ACM2
                Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1526-9914
                08 July 2015
                July 2015
                : 16
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.2015.16.issue-4 )
                : 112-124
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Research and Development Centre Bharathiar University Coimbatore India
                [ 2 ] Department of Radiation Oncology Yashoda Hospital Hyderabad India
                [ 3 ] Department of Radiation Oncology All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi India
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] a Corresponding author: Shanmuga V Subramanian, Department of Radiation Oncology, Yashoda Hospital, Raj bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ‐ 500082, India; phone: +919000006253; fax +91‐40‐2370655; email: saishanmugam@ 123456rediffmail.com

                Article
                ACM20112
                10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5415
                5690010
                26219006
                cfe222a9-d084-4491-97d2-aba8f1152640
                © 2015 The Authors.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 06 November 2014
                : 15 March 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 8, References: 22, Pages: 13, Words: 5969
                Categories
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                acm20112
                July 2015
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.5 mode:remove_FC converted:16.11.2017

                sbrt,vmat,fff,mmlc,hdmlc,rtog‐0813
                sbrt, vmat, fff, mmlc, hdmlc, rtog‐0813

                Comments

                Comment on this article