A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy

As the advantage of using complex volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of gynecologic cancer has not yet been fully determined, the purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric advantages of VMAT by comparing directly with whole pelvic conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of 15 postoperative cervical cancer patients. Four‐field CRT, seven‐field IMRT, and two‐arc VMAT plans were generated for each patient with identical objective functions to achieve clinically acceptable dose distribution. Target coverage and OAR sparing differences were investigated through dose‐volume histogram (DVH) analysis. Nondosimtric differences between IMRT and VMAT were also compared. Target coverage presented by V95% were 88.9% ± 3.8%, 99.9% ± 0.07%, and 99.9% ± 0.1% for CRT, IMRT, and VMAT, respectively. Significant differences on conformal index (CI) and conformal number (CN) were observed with CIs of 0.37 ± 0.07, 0.55 ± 0.04, 0.61 ± 0.04, and CNs of 0.33 ± 0.06, 0.55 ± 0.04, 0.60 ± 0.04 for CRT, IMRT, and VMAT, respectively. IMRT and VMAT decreased the dose to bladder and rectum significantly compared with CRT. No significant differences on the Dmean, V45, and V30 of small bowel were observed among CRT, IMRT, and VMAT. However, VMAT (10.4 ± 4.8 vs. 19.8 ± 11.0, P = 0.004) and IMRT (12.3 ± 5.0 vs. 19.8 ± 11.0, P = 0.02) decreased V40, increased the Dmax of small bowel and the irradiation dose to femoral heads compared with CRT. VMAT irradiated less dose to bladder, rectum, small bowel and larger volume of health tissue with a lower dose (V5 and V10) compared with IMRT, although the differences were not statistical significant. In conclusion, VMAT and IMRT showed significant dosimetric advantages both on target coverage and OAR sparing compared with CRT in the treatment of postoperative cervical cancer. However, no significant difference between IMRT and VMAT was observed except for slightly better dose conformity, slightly less MU, and significant shorter delivery time achieved for VMAT.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric benefits of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy in the treatment of postoperative cervical cancer patients

Deng

Han

Chen³

et al. 2016

“…Further, a radiotherapy technique termed volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been newly developed (2) . Some studies 3 , 4 have compared VMAT with IMRT in relation to target coverage, healthy tissue sparing, and treatment time. RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) is a technology commercialized as a derivative of VMAT treatment planning and delivery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Angular dependence correction of MatriXX and its application to composite dose verification

Shimohigashi

Araki

Tominaga

et al. 2012

We measured the angular dependence of central and off‐axis detectors in a 2D ionization chamber array, MatriXX, and applied correction factors (CFs) to improve the accuracy of composite dose verification of IMRT and VMAT. The MatriXX doses were measured with a 10° step for gantry angles (θ) of 0°–180°, and a 1° step for lateral angles of 90°–110° in a phantom, with a 30×10 cm2 field for 6 MV and 10 MV photons. The MatriXX doses were also calculated under the same conditions by the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. The CFs for the angular dependence of MatriXX were obtained as a function of θ from the ratios of MatriXX‐measured doses to MC‐calculated doses, and normalized at θ=0°. The corrected MatriXX were validated with different fields, various simple plans, and clinical treatment plans. The dose distributions were compared with those of MC calculations and film. The absolute doses were also compared with ionization chamber and MC‐calculated doses. The angular dependence of MatriXX showed over‐responses of up to 6% and 4% at θ=90° and under‐responses of up to 15% and 11% at 92°, and 8% and 5% at 180° for 6 MV and 10 MV photons, respectively. At 92°, the CFs for the off‐axis detectors were larger by up to 7% and 6% than those for the central detectors for 6 MV and 10 MV photons, respectively, and were within 2.5% at other gantry angles. For simple plans, MatriXX doses with angular correction were within 2% of those measured with the ionization chamber at the central axis and off‐axis. For clinical treatment plans, MatriXX with angular correction agreed well with dose distributions calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) for gamma evaluation at 3% and 3 mm. The angular dependence corrections of MatriXX were useful in improving the measurement accuracy of composite dose verification of IMRT and VMAT.PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

“…The architecture of this technique provides more number of degrees of freedom to optimize the dose delivery. Clinical advantages and comparison with present techniques for different sites have been reported 4 , 6 . To commission and QA the delivery system, Ling et al (7) proposed benchmark tests based upon the principles addressed by LoSasso et al (8) for dynamic IMRT QA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)

Mynampati

Yaparpalvi

Hong

et al. 2012

The purpose of this study was to create AAPM TG 119 benchmark plans for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and to compare VMAT plans with IMRT plan data. AAPM TG 119 proposes a set of test clinical cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery system. For these test cases, we generated two treatment plans, the first plan using 7–9 static dMLC IMRT fields and a second plan utilizing one‐ or two‐arc VMAT technique. Dose optimization and calculations performed using 6 MV photons and Eclipse treatment planning system. Dose prescription and planning objectives were set according to the TG 119 goals. Plans were scored based on TG 119 planning objectives. Treatment plans were compared using conformity index (CI) for reference dose and homogeneity index (HI) (for D5‐D95). F or test cases prostate, head‐and‐neck, C‐shape and multitarget prescription dose are 75.6 Gy, 50.4 Gy, 50 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. VMAT dose distributions were comparable to dMLC IMRT plans. Our planning results matched TG 119 planning results. For treatment plans studied, conformity indices ranged from 1.05–1.23 (IMRT) and 1.04–1.23 (VMAT). Homogeneity indices ranged from 4.6%–11.0% (IMRT) and 4.6%–10.5% (VMAT). The ratio of total monitor units necessary for dMLC IMRT to that of VMAT was in the range of 1.1–2.0. AAPM TG 119 test cases are useful to generate VMAT benchmark plans. At preclinical implementation stage, plan comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans of AAPM TG 119 test case allowed us to understand basic capabilities of VMAT technique.PACS number: 87.55.Qr