A treatment planning method to avoid the larynx and eliminate the match-line in the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Sparing dysphagia/aspiration related structures using novel hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy

PURPOSE

Studies using split field IMRT to spare dysphagia/aspiration related structures (DARS) have raised concern regarding dose uncertainty at matchline. This study explores the utility of hybrid VMAT in sparing the DARS and assesses matchline dose uncertainty in postoperative oral cavity cancer patients and compares it with VMAT.

METHODS & MATERIALS

Ten postoperative oral cavity cancer patients were planned with h-VMAT and VMAT using the same planning CT dataset. PTV and DARS were contoured using standard delineation guidelines. In h-VMAT 80% of the neck dose was planned using AP/PA technique and then VMAT optimization was done for the total PTV by keeping the corresponding AP/PA plan as the base dose. Planning goal for PTV was V_95%≥95% and for DARS, adequate sparing. Plans and dose volume histograms were analyzed using dosimetric indices. Absolute point and portal dose measurements were done for h-VMAT plans to verify dose at the matchline.

RESULTS

Coverage in both the techniques was comparable. Significant differences were observed in mean doses to DARS (Larynx: 24.36±2.51 versus 16.88±2.41Gy; p<0.0006, Pharyngeal constrictors: 25.16±2.41 versus 21.2±2.1Gy; p<0.005, Esophageal inlet: 18.71±2 versus 12.06±0.79Gy; p<0.0002) favoring h-VMAT. Total MU in both the techniques was comparable. Average percentage variations in point dose measurements in h-VMAT done at +3.5 and -3.5 positions were (1.47±1.48 and 2.28±1.35%) respectively. Average gamma agreement for portal dose measured was 97.07%.

CONCLUSION

h-VMAT achieves better sparing of DARS with no matchline dose uncertainty. Since these patients have swallowing dysfunction post-operatively, attempts should be made to spare these critical structures as much as possible.

Relationship of segment area and monitor unit efficiency in aperture-based IMRT optimization

In step‐and‐shoot IMRT plans, aperture‐based optimization (or one‐step optimization) has been considered as a means of improving monitor unit (MU) efficiency compared to fluence‐based optimization (or two‐step optimization). However, the extent of improvement on MU efficiency varies, depending on the implementation and design of one‐step optimization. In this paper, we attempted to investigate MU efficiency issue in two methods of one‐step optimization implemented in two commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs). Five patients with nasopharyngeal cancer and five patients with advanced prostate cancer were selected for this study. For these patients, clinically used IMRT plans were generated using the Direct Machine Parameter Optimization (DMPO) in the Pinnacle TPS. New IMRT plans were created using the Direct Aperture Optimization (DAO) method in the Panther TPS. For the purpose of this study, we used the similar planning dose objectives and beam configurations with a similar total number of segments in each pair of DMPO and DAO plans. With similar plan quality, DMPO plans required more MUs than DAO plans. The average number of MUs (expressed in mean ±1 SD) for the DMPO and DAO plans was 1,169±186 and 671±135 for the nasopharynx cases, and 711±48 and 400±65 for the prostate cases, respectively. The average segment areas (expressed in mean ±1 SD) for the DMPO plans were smaller than those for the DAO plans: 46.0±7.6 cm2 vs. 100.9±32.3 cm2 for the nasopharynx cases, and 58.3±17.2 cm2 vs. 97.4±35.0 cm2 for the prostate cases, respectively. In conclusion, two one‐step optimization algorithms, DMPO and DAO, resulted in much different MU efficiency with the similar number of segments and optimization parameters. This MU difference is largely attributed to the fact that large area segments are used more often in DAO plans than in DMPO plans.

PACS number: 87.55.de