Volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for prostate cancer with flattened beam and flattening filter free linear accelerators (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology, 2014
Purpose: To identify the continual diversity between flattening photon beam (FB) and Flattening Filter Free (FFF) photon beams for localized prostate cancer; and to determine potential benefits and drawbacks of using unflattened beam for this type of treatment. Methods: Eight prostate cases including seminal vesicles selected for this study. The primary planning target volume (PTVP) and boost planning target volume (PTVB) were contoured. The total prescription dose was 78 Gy (56 Gy to PTVP and an additional 22 Gy to PTVB). For all cases, treatment plans using 6MV with FB and FFF beams with identical dose-volume constraints, arc angles and number of arcs were developed. The dose volume histograms for both techniques were compared for primary target volume and critical structures. Results: A low Sigma index (FFF: 1.65 + 0.361; FB: 1.725 + 0.39) indicating improved dose homogeneity in FFF beam. Conformity index (FFF: 0.994 + 0.01; FB: 0.993 + 0.01) is comparable for both techniques. Minimal difference of Organ at risk mean dose was observed. Normal tissue integral dose in FB plan resulted 1.5% lower than FFF plan. All the plans displayed significant increase (1.18 times for PTVP and 1.11 for PTBB) in the average number of necessary MU with FFF beam. Conclusion: Diversity between FB and FFF beam plans were found. FFF beam accelerator has been utilized to develop clinically acceptable Rapid Arc treatment plans for prostate cancer with 6 MV.
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 2014
Introduction: This study compared four different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) beam arrangements for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer examining plan quality and the impact on a radiotherapy department's resources. Methods: Twenty prostate cases were retrospectively planned using four VMAT beam arrangements (1) a partial arc (PA), (2) one arc (1A), (3) one arc plus a partial arc (1A + PA) and (4) two arcs (2A). The quality of the dose distributions generated were compared by examining the overall plan quality, the homogeneity and conformity to the planning target volume (PTV), the number of monitor units and the dose delivered to the organs at risk. Departmental resources were considered by recording the planning time and beam delivery time. Results: Each technique produced a plan of similar quality that was considered adequate for treatment; though some differences were noted. The 1A, 1A + PA and 2A plans demonstrated a better conformity to the PTV which correlated to improved sparing of the rectum in the 60-70 Gy range for the 1A + PA and 2A techniques. The time needed to generate the plans was different for each technique ranging from 13.1 min for 1A + PA to 17.8 min for 1A. The PA beam delivery time was fastest with a mean time of 0.9 min. Beam-on times then increased with an increase in the number of arcs up to an average of 2.2 min for the 2A technique. Conclusion: Which VMAT technique is best suited for clinical implementation for the treatment of prostate cancer may be dictated by the individual patient and the availability of departmental resources.
Searching standard parameters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of prostate cancer
Background Since December 2009 a new VMAT planning system tool is available in Oncentra(R) MasterPlan v3.3 (Nucletron B.V.). The purpose of this study was to work out standard parameters for the optimization of prostate cancer. Methods For ten patients with localized prostate cancer plans for simultaneous integrated boost were optimized, varying systematically the number of arcs, collimator angle, the maximum delivery time, and the gantry spacing. Homogeneity in clinical target volume, minimum dose in planning target volume, median dose in the organs at risk, maximum dose in the posterior part of the rectum, and number of monitor units were evaluated using student's test for statistical analysis. Measurements were performed with a 2D-array, taking the delivery time, and compared to the calculation by the gamma method. Results Plans with collimator 45degrees were superior to plans with collimator 0degrees. Single arc resulted in higher minimum dose in the planning target volume, but also higher dose values to the organs at risk, requiring less monitor units per fraction dose than dual arc. Single arc needs a higher value (per arc) for the maximum delivery time parameter than dual arc, but as only one arc is needed, the measured delivery time was shorter and stayed below 2.5 min versus 3 to 5 min. Balancing plan quality, dosimetric results and calculation time, a gantry spacing of 4degrees led to optimal results. Conclusion A set of parameters has been found which can be used as standard for volumetric modulated arc therapy planning of prostate cancer.
Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy, 2009
Objective: To determine the optimum energy and beam arrangement for prostate intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery using an Elekta Beam Modulator TM linear accelerator, in order to inform decisions when commissioning IMRT for prostate cancer. Methods: CMS XiO was used to create IMRT plans for a prostate patient. Arrangements with 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 equally spaced fields, containing both a direct anterior and a direct posterior beam were used, with both 6 MV and 10 MV photons. The effects of varying the maximum number of iterations, leaf increment, number of intensity levels and minimum segment size were investigated. Treatment plans were compared using isodose distributions, conformity indices for targets and critical structures, target dose homogeneity, body dose and plan complexity. Results: Target dose conformity and homogeneity and sparing of critical structures improved with an increasing number of beams, although any improvements were small for plans containing more than five fields. Setups containing a direct posterior field provided superior conformality around the rectum to anterior beam arrangements. Mean non-target dose and total number of monitor units were higher with 6 MV for all beam arrangements. The dose distribution resulting from seven 6 MV beams was considered clinically equivalent to that with five 10 MV beams. Conclusion: Methods have been developed to plan IMRT treatments using XiO for delivery with a Beam Modulator TM that fulfil demanding dose criteria, using many different setups. This study suggests that 6 MV photons can produce prostate IMRT plans that are comparable to those using 10 MV. Work is ongoing to develop a complete class solution.
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 2013
The primary aim of this study is to compare intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the radical treatment of prostate cancer using version 10.0 (v10.0) of Varian Medical Systems, RapidArc radiation oncology system. Particular focus was placed on plan quality and the implications on departmental resources. The secondary objective was to compare the results in v10.0 to the preceding version 8.6 (v8.6). Methods: Twenty prostate cancer cases were retrospectively planned using v10.0 of Varian's Eclipse and RapidArc software. Three planning techniques were performed: a 5-field IMRT, VMAT using one arc (VMAT-1A), and VMAT with two arcs (VMAT-2A). Plan quality was assessed by examining homogeneity, conformity, the number of monitor units (MUs) utilized, and dose to the organs at risk (OAR). Resource implications were assessed by examining planning and treatment times. The results obtained using v10.0 were also compared to those previously reported by our group for v8.6. Results: In v10.0, each technique was able to produce a dose distribution that achieved the departmental planning guidelines. The IMRT plans were produced faster than VMAT plans and displayed improved homogeneity. The VMAT plans provided better conformity to the target volume, improved dose to the OAR, and required fewer MUs. Treatments using VMAT-1A were significantly faster than both IMRT and VMAT-2A. Comparison between versions 8.6 and 10.0 revealed that in the newer version, VMAT planning was significantly faster and the quality of the VMAT dose distributions produced were of a better quality. Conclusion: VMAT (v10.0) using one or two arcs provides an acceptable alternative to IMRT for the treatment of prostate cancer. VMAT-1A has the greatest impact on reducing treatment time.
Forward Planning Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Technique for Prostate Cancer
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2007
In this study, we present an intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique based on forward planning dose calculations to provide a concave dose distribution to the prostate and seminal vesicles by means of modified dynamic arc therapy (M-DAT). Dynamic arcs (350 degrees) conforming to the beam's eye view of the prostate and seminal vesicles while shielding the rectum, combined with two lateral oblique conformal fields (15 degrees with respect to laterals) fitting the prostate only, were applied to deliver doses of 78 Gy and 61.23 Gy in 39 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles respectively. Dynamic wedges (45 degrees of thick end, anteriorly oriented) were used with conformal beams to adjust the dose homogeneity to the prostate, although in some cases, hard wedges (30 degrees of thick part, inferiorly oriented) were used with arcs to adjust the dose coverage to the seminal vesicles. The M-DAT was applied to 10 patients in supine and 10 patients in prone positioning to determine the proper patient positioning for optimum protection of the rectum. The M-DAT was compared with the simplified intensity-modulated arc therapy (SIMAT) technique, composed of three phases of bilateral dynamic arcs. The mean rectal dose in M-DAT for prone patients was 22.5 ± 5.1 Gy; in M-DAT and SIMAT for supine patients, it was 30.2 ± 5.1 Gy and 39.4 ± 6.0 Gy respectively. The doses to 15%, 25%, 35%, and 50% of the rectum volume in M-DAT for prone patients were 44.5 ± 10.2 Gy, 33.0 ± 8.2 Gy, 25.3 ± 6.4 Gy, and 16.3 ± 5.6 Gy respectively. These values were lower than those in M-DAT and in SIMAT for supine patients by 7.7%, 18.2%, 22.4%, and 28.5% and by 25.0%, 32.1%, 34.9%, and 41.9% of the prescribed dose (78 Gy) respectively. Ion chamber measurements showed good agreement of the calculated and measured isocentric dose (maximum deviation of 3.5%). Accuracy of the dose distribution calculation was evaluated by film dosimetry using a gamma index, allowing 3% dose variation and 4 mm distance to agreement as the individual acceptance criteria in prostate and seminal vesicle levels alike for all supine and prone patients. We found that fewer than 10% of the pixels in the dose distribution of the calculated area of 10×10-cm failed the acceptance criteria. These pixels were observed mainly in the low-dose regions, particularly at the level of the seminal vesicles. In conclusion, the single-phase M-DAT technique with patients in the prone position was found to provide the intended coverage of the prescribed doses to the prostate and seminal vesicles with improved protection for the rectum. Accordingly, M-DAT has replaced non-modulated conformal radiotherapy or SIMAT as the standard treatment for prostate cancer in our department.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2008
Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel form of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) optimization that allows the radiation dose to be delivered in a single gantry rotation of up to 360°, using either a constant dose rate (cdr-VMAT) or variable dose rate (vdr-VMAT) during rotation. The goal of this study was to compare VMAT prostate RT plans with three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) and IMRT plans.The 3D-CRT, five-field IMRT, cdr-VMAT, and vdr-VMAT RT plans were created for 10 computed tomography data sets from patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer. The parameters evaluated included the doses to organs at risk, equivalent uniform doses, dose homogeneity and conformality, and monitor units required for delivery of a 2-Gy fraction.The IMRT and both VMAT techniques resulted in lower doses to normal critical structures than 3D-CRT plans for nearly all dosimetric endpoints analyzed. The lowest doses to organs at risk and most favorable equivalent uniform doses were achieved with vdr-VMAT, which was significantly better than IMRT for the rectal and femoral head dosimetric endpoints (p < 0.05) and significantly better than cdr-VMAT for most bladder and rectal endpoints (p < 0.05). The vdr-VMAT and cdr-VMAT plans required fewer monitor units than did the IMRT plans (relative reduction of 42% and 38%, respectively; p = 0.005) but more than for the 3D-CRT plans (p = 0.005).The IMRT and VMAT techniques achieved highly conformal treatment plans. The vdr-VMAT technique resulted in more favorable dose distributions than the IMRT or cdr-VMAT techniques, and reduced the monitor units required compared with IMRT.