Prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single-arc and double-arc technique

Predictive modelling for late rectal and urinary toxicities after prostate radiotherapy using planned and delivered dose

Background and purpose

Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) parameters derived from traditional 3D plans may not be ideal in defining toxicity outcomes for modern radiotherapy techniques. This study aimed to derive parameters of the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) NTCP model using prospectively scored clinical data for late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities for high-risk prostate cancer patients treated using volumetric-modulated-arc-therapy (VMAT). Dose-volume-histograms (DVH) extracted from planned (D_P) and accumulated dose (D_A) were used.

Material and methods

D_P and D_A obtained from the DVH of 150 prostate cancer patients with pelvic-lymph-nodes irradiation treated using VMAT were used to generate LKB-NTCP parameters using maximum likelihood estimations. Defined GI and GU toxicities were recorded up to 3-years post RT follow-up. Model performance was measured using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test and the mean area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). Bootstrapping method was used for internal validation.

Results

For mild-severe (Grade ≥1) GI toxicity, the model generated similar parameters based on D_A and D_P DVH data (D_A-D₅₀:71.6 Gy vs D_P-D₅₀:73.4; D_A-m:0.17 vs D_P-m:0.19 and D_A/P-n 0.04). The 95% CI for D_A-D₅₀ was narrower and achieved an AUC of >0.6. For moderate-severe (Grade ≥2) GI toxicity, D_A-D₅₀ parameter was higher and had a narrower 95% CI (D_A-D₅₀:77.9 Gy, 95% CI:76.4-79.6 Gy vs D_P-D₅₀:74.6, 95% CI:69.1-85.4 Gy) with good model performance (AUC>0.7). For Grade ≥1 late GU toxicity, D₅₀ and n parameters for D_A and D_P were similar (D_A-D₅₀: 58.8 Gy vs D_P-D₅₀: 59.5 Gy; D_A-n: 0.21 vs D_P-n: 0.19) with a low AUC of<0.6. For Grade ≥2 late GU toxicity, similar NTCP parameters were attained from D_A and D_P DVH data (D_A-D₅₀:81.7 Gy vs D_P-D₅₀:81.9 Gy; D_A-n:0.12 vs D_P-n:0.14) with an acceptable AUCs of >0.6.

Conclusions

The achieved NTCP parameters using modern RT techniques and accounting for organ motion differs from QUANTEC reported parameters. D_A-D₅₀ of 77.9 Gy for GI and D_A/D_P-D₅₀ of 81.7-81.9 Gy for GU demonstrated good predictability in determining the risk of Grade ≥2 toxicities especially for GI derived D₅₀ and are recommended to incorporate as part of the DV planning constraints to guide dose escalation strategies while minimising the risk of toxicity.

Predictive gamma passing rate of 3D detector array-based volumetric modulated arc therapy quality assurance for prostate cancer via deep learning

To predict the gamma passing rate (GPR) of the three-dimensional (3D) detector array-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) for prostate cancer using a convolutional neural network (CNN) with the 3D dose distribution. One hundred thirty-five VMAT plans for prostate cancer were selected: 110 plans were used for training and validation, and 25 plans were used for testing. Verification plans were measured using a helical 3D diode array (ArcCHECK). The dose distribution on the detector element plane of these verification plans was used as input data for the CNN model. The measured GPR (mGPR) values were used as the training data. The CNN model comprises eighteen layers and predicted GPR (pGPR) values. The mGPR and pGPR values were compared, and a cumulative frequency histogram of the prediction error was created to clarify the prediction error tendency. The correlation coefficients of pGPR and mGPR were 0.67, 0.69, 0.66, and 0.73 for 3%/3-mm, 3%/2-mm, 2%/3-mm, and 2%/2-mm gamma criteria, respectively. The respective mean±standard deviations of pGPR-mGPR were -0.87±2.18%, -0.65±2.93%, -0.44±2.53%, and -0.71±3.33%. The probabilities of false positive error cases (pGPR < mGPR) were 72%, 60%, 68%, and 56% for each gamma criterion. We developed a deep learning-based prediction model of the 3D detector array-based VMAT QA for prostate cancer, and evaluated the accuracy and tendency of prediction GPR. This model can provide a proactive estimation for the results of the patient-specific QA before the verification measurement.

Dosimetric comparison of robotic- and LINAC-based treatment of spine stereotactic body radiotherapy

To determine which treatment technique and modality would offer better dosimetric results and be preferable for spinal stereotactic body therapy (SBRT) depending on the three different regions of the vertebrae. Linear accelerator (LINAC)- and CyberKnife (CK)-based treatment techniques were compared in terms of their dosimetric quality, treatment efficiency, and delivery accuracy. Thirty previously treated patients were included in this study. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques were used for LINAC-based treatment, whereas CK-based treatment plans were generated for two different collimator systems: fixed and multileaf collimator (MLC). The plans were compared based on spinal cord sparing, dose homogeneity, conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), monitor unit (MU), and beam-on time. The percentage volumes of V2Gy, V5Gy (representing volume low of the dose spillage region), V10Gy, and V20Gy (representing the volume of the high-dose spillage region) of the healthy tissue were analyzed. The CI and GI of the VMAT plans were better than those of the IMRT plans. For spinal cord sparing, the VMAT and MLC-based CK (CK-MLC) techniques were superior. The percentage of low-dose spillage regions was the lowest for IMRT and fixed cone-based CK (CK-FIX) plans. The percentage of the high-dose spillage region was the lowest for the VMAT and CK-MLC plans. In terms of treatment efficiency, the VMAT and CK-MLC plans were superior to the IMRT and CK-FIX plans. The VMAT technique lowered the MU and beam-on time values. The plan delivery accuracy of the VMAT and CK-FIX plans was better than that of the IMRT plans. VMAT is the best option for LINAC-based spinal SBRT. For CK-based spinal SBRT, MLC-based plans are preferred. If the clinic has both treatment modalities and the patient can tolerate long treatment times, CK-MLC-based treatment should be chosen because of its superiority in sparing the spinal cord and sharp dose fall-off.

[Impact of Irradiation Field Aperture Controller Settings on Patient-specific Quality Assurance]

PURPOSE

The aperture shape controller (ASC) is a tool on a radiation therapy planning system to reduce complexity by increasing the aperture size of multileaf collimator (MLC). The purposes of this study were to clarify the effect of the dose index on the treatment plan when the intensity of ASC is changed and then to clarify the effect on the verification result in the individual patient-specific quality assurance (QA) using the verification phantom.

METHODS

For four types of mock structures presented at AAPM TG-119, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans with three dose levels were set without using the ASC for each of these four types. ASC settings were changed to very low, low, moderate, high and very high for the treatment plan, and the treatment plan was recreated without changing the planning target volume (PTV) and/or OAR dose constraints. The dose index of the treatment plan was then evaluated. The plan was also transferred by the true composite method to the assessment phantom, and patient-specific QA was evaluated.

RESULTS

The frequency of dose constraint deviation by changing the ASC was 3.6% (2/55). In patient-specific QA, when the ASC setting was set to moderate, the γ analysis passing rate increased by 1.5% compared to the case without the ASC. In the treatment plan with a γ analysis pass rate of 95% or less without ASC, a 2.7% increase in the γ analysis pass rate was observed by setting the ASC to moderate.

CONCLUSION

We found that setting the ASC tended to improve patient-specific QA. Compared to when the ASC was not set, the evaluation result of patient-specific QA was improved without violating the dose constraints of the PTV and/or organ at risk (OAR). In particular, the improvement was notable for the case where the evaluation result of patient-specific QA was 95% or less when the ASC was not used.

Dosimetric comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy planning techniques for prostate cancer in the presence of intrafractional organ deformation

The purpose of this study was to compare single-arc (SA) and double-arc (DA) treatment plans, which are planning techniques often used in prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), in the presence of intrafractional deformation (ID) to determine which technique is superior in terms of target dose coverage and sparing of the organs at risk (OARs). SA and DA plans were created for 27 patients with localized prostate cancer. ID was introduced to the clinical target volume (CTV), rectum and bladder to obtain blurred dose distributions using an in-house software. ID was based on the motion probability function of each structure voxel and the intrafractional motion of the respective organs. From the resultant blurred dose distributions of SA and DA plans, various parameters, including the tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability, homogeneity index, conformity index, modulation complexity score for VMAT, dose-volume indices and monitor units (MUs), were evaluated to compare the two techniques. Statistical analysis showed that most CTV and rectum parameters were significantly larger for SA plans than for DA plans (P < 0.05). Furthermore, SA plans had fewer MUs and were less complex (P < 0.05). The significant differences observed had no clinical significance, indicating that both plans are comparable in terms of target and OAR dosimetry when ID is considered. The use of SA plans is recommended for prostate cancer VMAT because they can be delivered in shorter treatment times than DA plans, and therefore benefit the patients.

[Comparison of O-ring and General Linacs for Treatment Planning of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy]

PURPOSE

Novel linac improvements in speed of gantry, collimator, leaf and dose rate may increase the time-efficiency of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery, however remains to be investigated. In this study, a fast-rotating O-ring linac (Halcyon) with fast moving leaves is compared with a general linac (TrueBeam: TB) in terms of plan quality for VMAT of C-shape, prostate, multi target and, head and neck (H&N) cases from AAPM TG-119.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the four test cases, VMAT planning was performed using single to four-arc VMAT on a Halcyon and using single to three-arc VMAT on a TrueBeam. Same conditions for optimization were used in each test case. Target coverage metrics and organ at risks (OAR) dose were compared. Monitor unit (MU) and irradiation time in each plan were also compared.

RESULTS

In all cases, single-arc plans of Halcyon were inferior to TB plans on dose objectives. Conformity index (CI) to outer target of C-shape case was better for Halcyon (1-arc: 1.242, 2-arc: 1.202, 3-arc: 1.198, 4-arc: 1.181) than for TB (1-arc: 1.247, 2-arc: 1.211, 3-arc: 1.211) except to single arc. D₅ (Gy) of core for C-shape case was better for halcyon (1-arc: 23.29, 2-arc: 21.01, 3-arc: 20.64, 4-arc: 20.47) than for TB (1-arc: 24.04, 2-arc: 22.94, 3-arc: 23.04). Calculated MU was smaller for Halcyon than for TB. In addition, Halcyon is more faster than TB because mechanical movements were improved.

CONCLUSION

For VMAT plan in each case, Halcyon as well or better at the plan quality of two or three arcs on TB while reducing the delivery time.

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of prostate VMAT plans optimized using the photon and progressive resolution algorithm

This study compared the dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using different prescriptions optimized by the photon optimization (PO) and progressive resolution optimization (PRO) algorithm. A total of 20 prostate patients were selected retrospectively and divided into 2 groups of VMAT plans using prescriptions of 60 Gy/20 fx and 79 Gy/38 fx. Inverse treatment planning optimized by the PO and PRO algorithm based on the dual-arc technique was carried out by the Eclipse treatment planning system. The maximum dose, minimum dose, mean dose, dose-volume points, and dose-volume indices of the targets and organs at risk (OAR) were calculated from the plans. In addition, radiobiological parameters such as tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) of the targets and OAR were determined based on their dose-volume histograms (DVHs). A paired Student's t-test was carried out to compare the difference between mean dose-volume points, radiobiological parameters, and dose-volume indices. Two-tailed p < 0.05 was defined as having statistical difference. For prostate VMAT plans optimized by the PO algorithm, equal or slightly larger mean dose and TCP of the PTV (1% for 60 Gy/20 fx and 0.2% for 78 Gy/39 fx) were found by comparing to the PRO. These were followed by finding the slightly larger conformity index (CI; 0.927 vs 0.895 and 0.910 vs 0.904), larger or equal homogeneity index (HI; 0.054 vs 0.052 and 0.058 vs 0.058), and smaller gradient index (GI; 1.366 vs 2.288 and 1.585 vs 1.742) of the PTV using plans optimized by the PO vs PRO using prescriptions of 60 Gy/20 fx and 78 Gy/39 fx. For the OAR, we found that the mean doses, NTCPs, and EUDs of the rectum, bladder, and femur were slightly larger for plans optimized by the PO algorithm compared to the PRO, though both optimization algorithms satisfied all the dose-volume criteria and objectives in the inverse planning. Both the PO and PRO algorithm can generate prostate VMAT plans fulfilling the required dose-volume criteria. It is concluded that plans optimized by the PO algorithm can produce prostate plan with very similar quality compared to PRO.

Influence of SBRT fractionation on TCP and NTCP estimations for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Stereotactic body radiation therapy is widely used for the hypofractionated treatment of prostate cancer. The range of total doses used in different clinical trials varies from 33.5 to 50 Gy delivered in 4 or 5 fractions. The choice of an optimal total dose value and fractionation regimen for a particular patient can be carried out using the integral radiobiological criteria, namely tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). In this study, we have investigated the dependence of simulated TCP/NTCP values on total dose in the range of 30-40 Gy delivered in 4 or 5 fractions for patients with low-risk prostate cancer in order to find the optimal total dose value and fractionation regimen.

METHODS

The anatomic data (DICOM CT images) of 12 patients with low-risk prostate cancer, who were treated at Tomsk Regional Oncology Centre, were used for the calculation. Dosimetric treatment plans for all patients were simulated using VMAT with 2 arcs in the Monaco treatment planning system v5.10 (Elekta Instrument AB, Stockholm) with a total dose equal to 36.25 Gy. The dosimetric plans were rescaled in the dose range of 30-40 Gy. The TCP and NTCP values were calculated based on differential dose volume histograms using the Niemierko model for both TCP and NTCP, and the Källman-s model for NTCP calculations. The TCP calculation was carried out using the uncertainty of well-known tumour radiobiological parameters values, including α/β value. NTCP was calculated for an anterior rectal wall, which was the most irradiated organ at risk due to its close contact with the planning target volume.

RESULTS

The TCP and NTCP calculations for VMAT of the prostate cancer have shown that the optimal total dose ranges were equal to 32-34 Gy delivered in 4 fractions or 35-38 Gy delivered in 5 fractions. At doses lower than the optimal ones, the TCP values were lower than 95%, while TCP uncertainties were significant (as low as 80%). This fact might bring unexpectedly poor treatment results. At doses higher than optimal ones, the probability of toxicity to the anterior rectal wall became significant.

CONCLUSION

The optimization of radiation therapy regimen based on TCP/NTCP criteria could help to determine an optimal total dose and a number of fractions for a particular patient depending on patient-specific anatomic features and planned dose distribution.

Evaluation of plan optimisers in prostate VMAT using the dose distribution index

Purpose:

Dose distribution index (DDI) is a treatment planning evaluation parameter, reflecting dosimetric information of target coverage that can help to spare organs at risk (OARs) and remaining volume at risk (RVR). The index has been used to evaluate and compare prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using two different plan optimisers, namely photon optimisation (PO) and its predecessor, progressive resolution optimisation (PRO).

Materials and methods:

Twenty prostate VMAT treatment plans were created using the PO and PRO in this retrospective study. The 6 MV photon beams and a dose prescription of 78 Gy/39 fractions were used in plans with the same dose–volume criteria for plan optimisation. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the planning target volume (PTV), as well as of OARs such as the rectum, bladder, left and right femur were determined in each plan. DDIs were calculated and compared for plans created by the PO and PRO based on DVHs of the PTV and all OARs.

Results:

The mean DDI values were 0·784 and 0·810 for prostate VMAT plans created by the PO and PRO, respectively. It was found that the DDI of the PRO plan was about 3·3% larger than the PO plan, which means that the dose distribution of the target coverage and sparing of OARs in the PRO plan was slightly better. Changing the weighting factors in different OARs would vary the DDI value by ∼7%. However, for plan comparison based on the same set of dose–volume criteria, the effect of weighting factor can be neglected because they were the same in the PO and PRO.

Conclusions:

Based on the very similar DDI values calculated from the PO and PRO plans, with the DDI value in the PRO plan slightly larger than that of the PO, it may be concluded that the PRO can create a prostate VMAT plan with slightly better dose distribution regarding the target coverage and sparing of OARs. Moreover, we found that the DDI is a simple and comprehensive dose–volume parameter for plan evaluation considering the target, OARs and RVR.

[Study of Stability and Sensitivity of Three-dimensional Diode Array Detector]

PURPOSE

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a widely accepted and efficient treatment technique for many types of cancers. Patient's specific quality assurance (QA) should be performed with QA devices. Stability and sensitivity tests conducted on the ArcCHECK (AC) 3D diode array were performed.

METHODS

Set-up error test with AC was performed. The set-up position moved to lateral (mm), longitudinal (mm) and rotational (°) were 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, respectively. Sensitivity change test of diode array with AC through 230 days was also performed. Same array calibration data was applied to all measurements of volumetric-modulated arc therapy benchmark test through 230 days. Gamma method (2 mm/2% criteria) was performed to analyze the result of all measurements.

RESULTS

In the results of positional error, gamma pass rate become degenerate according to positional error became larger. With 0.5 mm or 0.5° positional error, decreasing rate of the pass rate of lateral, longitudinal and rotational were 1.0%, 2.5% and 4.2%, respectively. In the sensitivity change test, the gamma pass rate decreased 2.2%/100 days with same calibration data.

CONCLUSION

AC has highly sensitivity against positional error. Sensitivity of AC has been changed and pass rate was decreased 2.2%/100 days through 230 days. Array calibration should be performed in consideration of change of sensitivity.

Dosimetric variations in calculation grid size in prostate VMAT: a dose-volume histogram analysis using the Gaussian error function

Background

Varying the calculation grid size can change the results of dose-volume and radiobiological parameters in a treatment plan, and therefore has an impact on the treatment planning quality assurance.

Purpose

This study investigated the dosimetric influence of the calculation grid size variation in the prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan.

Methods and materials

Dose distributions of 10 prostate VMAT plans were acquired using calculation grid sizes of 1–5 mm. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis was carried out to determine the dose-volume variation corresponding to the grid size change using the Gaussian error function (GEF). At the same time, dose-volume points, dose-volume parameters and radiobiological parameters were calculated based on DVHs of targets and organs at risk (OARs) for each grid size.

Results

Comparing percentage variations of GEF parameters between the planning target volume (PTV) and clinical target volume (CTV), GEF parameters of the PTV were found varied more significantly than the CTV. This resulted in larger variations of dose-volume (%ΔCI=40·02 versus 13·55%, %ΔHI=12·45 versus 2·93% and %ΔGI=0·22 versus 0·06%) and radiobiological parameters (%ΔTCP=0·61 versus 0·25% and %ΔEUD=2·11 versus 0·26%) of the PTV compared with CTV. For OARs, the rectal wall showed a larger dose-volume variation than the rectum. However, similar dose-volume variation due to grid size change was not found in the bladder, bladder wall and femur.

Conclusions

Knowing the dosimetric variation in this study is important to the radiotherapy staff in the quality assurance for the prostate VMAT planning.

Optimal planning strategy among various arc arrangements for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arc therapy technique

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the optimal strategy among various arc arrangements in prostate plans of stereotactic body radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arc therapy (SBRT-VMAT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

To investigate how arc arrangements affect dosimetric and biological metrics, SBRT-VMAT plans for eighteen patients were generated with arrangements of single-full arc (1FA), single-partial arc (1PA), double-full arc (2FA), and double-partial arc (2PA). All plans were calculated by the Acuros XB calculation algorithm. Dosimetric and radiobiological metrics for target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated from dosevolume histograms.

RESULTS

All plans were highly conformal (CI<1.05, CN=0.91) and homogeneous (HI=0.09-0.12) for target volumes. For OARs, there was no difference in the bladder dose, while there was a significant difference in the rectum and both femoral head doses. Plans using 1PA and 2PA showed a strong reduction to the mean rectum dose compared to plans using 1FA and 2FA. Contrastively, the D2% and mean dose in both femoral heads were always lower in plans using 1FA and 2FA. The average tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probability were comparable in plans using all arc arrangements.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 1PA had a more effective delivery time and produced equivalent target coverage with better rectal sparing, although all plans using four arc arrangements showed generally similar for dosimetric and biological metrics. However, the D2% and mean dose in femoral heads increased slightly and remained within the tolerance. Therefore, this study suggests that the use of 1PA is an attractive choice for delivering prostate SBRT-VMAT.

Dosimetric and radiobiological characterizations of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy: A single-institution review of ninety cases

This study reviewed prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans after prostate IMRT technique was replaced by VMAT in an institution. Characterizations of dosimetry and radiobiological variation in prostate were determined based on treatment plans of 40 prostate IMRT patients (planning target volume = 77.8–335 cm³) and 50 VMAT patients (planning target volume = 120–351 cm³) treated before and after 2013, respectively. Both IMRT and VMAT plans used the same dose-volume criteria in the inverse planning optimization. Dose-volume histogram, mean doses of target and normal tissues (rectum, bladder and femoral heads), dose-volume points (D_99% of planning target volume; D_30%, D_50%, V_{30 Gy} and V_{35 Gy} of rectum and bladder; D_5%, V_{14 Gy}, V_{22 Gy} of femoral heads), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), prostate tumor control probability (TCP), and rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the Lyman-Burman-Kutcher algorithm were calculated for each IMRT and VMAT plan. From our results, VMAT plan was found better due to its higher (1.05%) CI, lower (0.83%) HI and (0.75%) GI than IMRT. Comparing doses in normal tissues between IMRT and VMAT, it was found that IMRT mostly delivered higher doses of about 1.05% to the normal tissues than VMAT. Prostate TCP and rectal NTCP were found increased (1%) for VMAT than IMRT. It is seen that VMAT technique can decrease the dose-volume evaluation criteria for the normal tissues. Based on our dosimetric and radiobiological results in treatment plans, it is concluded that our VMAT implementation could produce comparable or slightly better target coverage and normal tissue sparing with a faster treatment time in prostate radiotherapy.

Dosimetric comparison between the prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor

Background

We demonstrated that our proposed planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor (PDVF) can be used to evaluate the PTV dose coverage between the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans based on 90 prostate patients.

Purpose

PDVF were determined from the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans to compare their variation of PTV dose coverage. Comparisons of the PDVF with other plan evaluation parameters such as D5%, D95%, D99%, Dmean, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI) and prostate tumour control probability (TCP) were carried out.

Methods and materials

Prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using the 6 MV photon beams were created from 40 and 50 patients, respectively. Dosimetric indices (CI, HI and GI), dose–volume points (D5%, D95%, D99% and Dmean) and prostate TCP were calculated according to the PTV dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the plans. All PTV DVH curves were fitted using the Gaussian error function (GEF) model. The PDVF were calculated based on the GEF parameters.

Results

From the PTV DVHs of the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans, the average D99% of the PTV for IMRT and VMAT were 74·1 and 74·5 Gy, respectively. The average prostate TCP were 0·956 and 0·958 for the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The average PDVF of the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0·970 and 0·983, respectively. Although both the IMRT and VMAT plans showed very similar prostate TCP, the dosimetric and radiobiological results of the VMAT technique were slightly better than IMRT.

Conclusion

The calculated PDVF for the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans agreed well with other dosimetric and radiobiological parameters in this study. PDVF was verified as an alternative of evaluation parameter in the quality assurance of prostate treatment planning.

A treatment planning study comparing Elekta VMAT and fixed field IMRT using the varian treatment planning system eclipse

Background

The newest release of the Eclipse (Varian) treatment planning system (TPS) includes an optimizing engine for Elekta volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this new algorithm and to compare it to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for various disease sites by creating single- and double-arc VMAT plans.

Methods

A total of 162 plans were evaluated in this study, including 38 endometrial, 57 head and neck, 12 brain, 10 breast and 45 prostate cancer cases. The real-life IMRT plans were developed during routine clinical cases using the TPS Eclipse. VMAT plans were generated using a preclinical version of Eclipse with tumor-region-specific optimizing templates without interference of the operator: with one full arc (1A) and with two full arcs (2A), and with partial arcs for breast and prostate with hip implant cases. All plans were evaluated based on target coverage, homogeneity and conformity. The organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed according to plan objectives, such as the mean and maximum doses. If one or more objectives were exceeded, the plan was considered clinically unacceptable, and a second VMAT plan was created by adapting the optimization penalties once.

Results

Compared to IMRT, single- and double-arc VMAT plans showed comparable or better results concerning the target coverage: the maximum dose in the target for 1A is the same as that for IMRT; for 2A, an average reduction of 1.3% over all plans was observed. The conformity showed a statistically significant improvement for both 1A (+3%) and 2A (+6%). The mean total body dose was statistically significant lower for the considered arc techniques (IMRT: 16.0 Gy, VMAT: 15.3 Gy, p < 0.001). However, the sparing of OARs shows individual behavior that depends strongly on the different tumor regions. A clear difference is found in the number of monitor units (MUs) per plan: VMAT shows a reduction of 31%.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that based on optimizing templates with minimal interaction of the operator, the Eclipse TPS is able to achieve a plan quality for the Elekta VMAT delivery technique that is comparable to that of fixed-field IMRT. Plans with two arcs show better dose distributions than plans with one arc.