skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-BRB-04: Comparison of Coplanar VMAT, Non-Coplanar VMAT, and 4π Treatment Plans

Abstract

Purpose: The 4π non-coplanar radiotherapy delivery technique has demonstrated significantly better normal tissue sparing and dose conformality than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The non-coplanar basis of 4π is incorporated into VMAT treatment planning to compare its effect on plan quality. Methods: Clinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 9 liver patients treated with 30–60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were re-planned using non-coplanar VMAT (nVMAT) with 3 arcs and 4 π with 20 intensity-modulated non-coplanar fields. All plans were optimized to deliver 100% of the prescribed dose to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), and nVMAT and 4π plans were tailored to match the maximum and mean PTV dose from the clinical plan. The conformality index (CI), 50% dose spillage volume (R50), normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy (VL>15), and doses to organs at risk (OARs) were compared for all three treatment plans. Results: Compared to cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced VL>15 by an average of 30.6 cm3 and 96.3 cm3, respectively. The average CI was also reduced from 1.22 (cVMAT) tomore » 1.17 (nVMAT) and 1.14 (4π), indicating higher conformality in the same order. Similarly, R50 was reduced from 3.87 (cVMAT) to 3.58 (nVMAT) and 2.74 (4π). With the exception of the mean right kidney dose, which increased by an average of only 0.6 Gy for nVMAT, the dose differences to OARs were not statistically significant between the two VMAT plans. 4π plans either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. Conclusion: While the manual selection of intuitive non-coplanar arcs does show some improvement over coplanar VMAT, the automated beam selection for 4π still results in superior plan quality. This project is supported in part by Varian Medical Systems and NIH R43 CA183390.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22555198
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Journal Name:
Medical Physics
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0094-2405
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BEAMS; HEALTH HAZARDS; KIDNEYS; LIVER; MANUALS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Woods, K, Nguyen, D, Tran, A, Yu, V, Cao, M, and Sheng, K. SU-F-BRB-04: Comparison of Coplanar VMAT, Non-Coplanar VMAT, and 4π Treatment Plans. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4925199.
Woods, K, Nguyen, D, Tran, A, Yu, V, Cao, M, & Sheng, K. SU-F-BRB-04: Comparison of Coplanar VMAT, Non-Coplanar VMAT, and 4π Treatment Plans. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925199.
Woods, K, Nguyen, D, Tran, A, Yu, V, Cao, M, and Sheng, K. Mon . "SU-F-BRB-04: Comparison of Coplanar VMAT, Non-Coplanar VMAT, and 4π Treatment Plans". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925199.
@article{osti_22555198,
title = {SU-F-BRB-04: Comparison of Coplanar VMAT, Non-Coplanar VMAT, and 4π Treatment Plans},
author = {Woods, K and Nguyen, D and Tran, A and Yu, V and Cao, M and Sheng, K},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The 4π non-coplanar radiotherapy delivery technique has demonstrated significantly better normal tissue sparing and dose conformality than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The non-coplanar basis of 4π is incorporated into VMAT treatment planning to compare its effect on plan quality. Methods: Clinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 9 liver patients treated with 30–60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were re-planned using non-coplanar VMAT (nVMAT) with 3 arcs and 4 π with 20 intensity-modulated non-coplanar fields. All plans were optimized to deliver 100% of the prescribed dose to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), and nVMAT and 4π plans were tailored to match the maximum and mean PTV dose from the clinical plan. The conformality index (CI), 50% dose spillage volume (R50), normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy (VL>15), and doses to organs at risk (OARs) were compared for all three treatment plans. Results: Compared to cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced VL>15 by an average of 30.6 cm3 and 96.3 cm3, respectively. The average CI was also reduced from 1.22 (cVMAT) to 1.17 (nVMAT) and 1.14 (4π), indicating higher conformality in the same order. Similarly, R50 was reduced from 3.87 (cVMAT) to 3.58 (nVMAT) and 2.74 (4π). With the exception of the mean right kidney dose, which increased by an average of only 0.6 Gy for nVMAT, the dose differences to OARs were not statistically significant between the two VMAT plans. 4π plans either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. Conclusion: While the manual selection of intuitive non-coplanar arcs does show some improvement over coplanar VMAT, the automated beam selection for 4π still results in superior plan quality. This project is supported in part by Varian Medical Systems and NIH R43 CA183390.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4925199},
journal = {Medical Physics},
issn = {0094-2405},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {2015},
month = {6}
}