Dataset Information

Evaluation of the trade-offs encountered in planning and treating locally advanced head and neck cancer: intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs dual-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

ABSTRACT: The primary purpose of this study was to assess the practical trade-offs between intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and dual-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (DA-VMAT) for locally advanced head and neck cancer (HNC).For 15 locally advanced HNC data sets, nine-field step-and-shoot IMRT plans and two full-rotation DA-VMAT treatment plans were created in the Pinnacle(3) v. 9.0 (Philips Medical Systems, Fitchburg, WI) treatment planning environment and then delivered on a Clinac iX (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) to a cylindrical detector array. The treatment planning goals were organised into four groups based on their importance: (1) spinal cord, brainstem, optical structures; (2) planning target volumes; (3) parotids, mandible, larynx and brachial plexus; and (4) normal tissues.Compared with IMRT, DA-VMAT plans were of equal plan quality (p>0.05 for each group), able to be delivered in a shorter time (3.1 min vs 8.3 min, p<0.0001), delivered fewer monitor units (on average 28% fewer, p<0.0001) and produced similar delivery accuracy (p>0.05 at ?(2%/2mm) and ?(3%/3mm)). However, the VMAT plans took more planning time (28.9 min vs 7.7 min per cycle, p<0.0001) and required more data for a three-dimensional dose (20 times more, p<0.0001).Nine-field step-and-shoot IMRT and DA-VMAT are both capable of meeting the majority of planning goals for locally advanced HNC. The main trade-offs between the techniques are shorter treatment time for DA-VMAT but longer planning time and the additional resources required for implementation of a new technology. Based on this study, our clinic has incorporated DA-VMAT for locally advanced HNC.DA-VMAT is a suitable alternative to IMRT for locally advanced HNC.

SUBMITTER: Oliver M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3611711 | biostudies-other | 2012 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the trade-offs encountered in planning and treating locally advanced head and neck cancer: intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs dual-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

Oliver M M McConnell D D Romani M M McAllister A A Pearce A A Andronowski A A Wang X X Leszczynski K K

The British journal of radiology 20120717 1020

<h4>Objective</h4>The primary purpose of this study was to assess the practical trade-offs between intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and dual-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (DA-VMAT) for locally advanced head and neck cancer (HNC).<h4>Methods</h4>For 15 locally advanced HNC data sets, nine-field step-and-shoot IMRT plans and two full-rotation DA-VMAT treatment plans were created in the Pinnacle(3) v. 9.0 (Philips Medical Systems, Fitchburg, WI) treatment planning environment and ...[more]

PMID: 22806619

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo create and to validate knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) models for breast cancer treatments without lymph node irradiation.Materials and methodsOne hundred VMAT-based breast plans (manual plans [MP]) were selected to create two knowledge-based VMAT models (breast left and breast right) using RapidPlan™. The plans were generated on Eclipse v15.5 (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with 6 MV of a Novalis Tx equipped with a high-resolution multileaf collimator. The models were verified based on goodness-of-fit statistics using the coefficients of determination (R 2) and Chi-square (χ2), and the goodness-of-estimation statistics through the mean square error (MSE). Geometrical and dosimetrical constraints were identified and removed from the RP models using statistical evaluation metrics and plots. For validation, 20 plans that integrate the models and 20 plans that do not were reoptimized with RP (closed and opened validation). Dosimetrical parameters of interest were used to compare MP versus RP plans for the Heart, Homolateral_Lung, Contralateral_Lung, and Contralateral_Breast. Optimization planning time and user independency were also analyzed.ResultsThe most unfavorable results of R2 in both models for the organs at risk were as follows: for Contralateral_Lung 0.51 in RP right breast (RP_RB) and for Heart 0.60 in RP left breast (RP_LB). The most unfavorable results of χ2 test were: for Contralateral_Breast 1.02 in RP_RB and for Heart 1.03 in RP_LB. These goodness-of-fit results show that no overfitting occurred in either of the models. There were no unfavorable results of mean square error (MSE, all < 0.05) in any of the two models. These goodness-of-estimation results show that the models have good estimation power. For closed validation, significant differences were found in RP_RB for Homolateral_Lung (all P ≤ 0.001), and in the RP_LB differences were found for the heart (all P ≤ 0.04) and for Homolateral_Lung (all P ≤ 0.022). For open validation, no statistically significant differences were obtained in either of the models. RP models had little impact on reducing optimization planning times for expert planners; nevertheless, the result showed a 30% reduction time for beginner planners. The use of RP models generates high-quality plans, without differences from the planner experience.ConclusionTwo RP models for breast cancer treatment using VMAT were successfully implemented. The use of RP models for breast cancer reduces the optimization planning time and improves the efficiency of the treatment planning process while ensuring high-quality plans.

Project description:The purpose of this work is to evaluate the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) multicriteria optimization (MCO) algorithm clinically available in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) and its ability to reduce treatment planning time while providing high dosimetric plan quality. Nine patients with localized prostate cancer who were previously treated with 78 Gy in 39 fractions using VMAT plans and rayArc system based on the direct machine parameter optimization (DMPO) algorithm were selected and replanned using the VMAT-MCO system. First, the dosimetric quality of the plans was evaluated using multiple conformity metrics that account for target coverage and sparing of healthy tissue, used in our departmental clinical protocols. The conformity and homogeneity index, number of monitor units, and treatment planning time for both modalities were assessed. Next, the effects of the technical plan parameters, such as constraint leaf motion CLM (cm/°) and maximum arc delivery time T (s), on the accuracy of delivered dose were evaluated using quality assurance passing rates (QAs) measured using the Delta4 phantom from ScandiDos. For the dosimetric plan's quality analysis, the results show that the VMAT-MCO system provides plans comparable to the rayArc system with no statistical difference for V95% (p < 0.01), D1% (p < 0.01), CI (p < 0.01), and HI (p < 0.01) of the PTV, bladder (p < 0.01), and rectum (p < 0.01) constraints, except for the femoral heads and healthy tissues, for which a dose reduction was observed using MCO compared with rayArc (p < 0.01). The technical parameter study showed that a combination of CLM equal to 0.5 cm/degree and a maximum delivery time of 72 s allowed the accurate delivery of the VMAT-MCO plan on the Elekta Versa HD linear accelerator. Planning evaluation and dosimetric measurements showed that VMAT-MCO can be used clinically with the advantage of enhanced planning process efficiency by reducing the treatment planning time without impairing dosimetric quality.

Project description:To introduce a hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy/intensity modulated radiation therapy (VMAT/IMRT) optimization strategy called FusionArc that combines the delivery efficiency of single-arc VMAT with the potentially desirable intensity modulation possible with IMRT.A beamlet-based inverse planning system was enhanced to combine the advantages of VMAT and IMRT into one comprehensive technique. In the hybrid strategy, baseline single-arc VMAT plans are optimized and then the current cost function gradients with respect to the beamlets are used to define a metric for predicting which beam angles would benefit from further intensity modulation. Beams with the highest metric values (called the gradient factor) are converted from VMAT apertures to IMRT fluence, and the optimization proceeds with the mixed variable set until convergence or until additional beams are selected for conversion. One phantom and two clinical cases were used to validate the gradient factor and characterize the FusionArc strategy. Comparisons were made between standard IMRT, single-arc VMAT, and FusionArc plans with one to five IMRT∕hybrid beams.The gradient factor was found to be highly predictive of the VMAT angles that would benefit plan quality the most from beam modulation. Over the three cases studied, a FusionArc plan with three converted beams achieved superior dosimetric quality with reductions in final cost ranging from 26.4% to 48.1% compared to single-arc VMAT. Additionally, the three beam FusionArc plans required 22.4%-43.7% fewer MU∕Gy than a seven beam IMRT plan. While the FusionArc plans with five converted beams offer larger reductions in final cost--32.9%-55.2% compared to single-arc VMAT--the decrease in MU∕Gy compared to IMRT was noticeably smaller at 12.2%-18.5%, when compared to IMRT.A hybrid VMAT∕IMRT strategy was implemented to find a high quality compromise between gantry-angle and intensity-based degrees of freedom. This optimization method will allow patients to be simultaneously planned for dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency without switching between delivery techniques. Example phantom and clinical cases suggest that the conversion of only three VMAT segments to modulated beams may result in a good combination of quality and efficiency.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the trade-offs encountered in planning and treating locally advanced head and neck cancer: intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs dual-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

Publications

Evaluation of the trade-offs encountered in planning and treating locally advanced head and neck cancer: intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs dual-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets