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

Title: SU-F-J-63: Abdominal Diameter Changes in Children During Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT): Is Re-Planning Needed?

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric impact of daily changes in patient’s diameter, due to weight gain/loss and air in the bowel, based on CBCT information during radiotherapy treatment of pediatric abdominal tumors. Methods: 10 pediatric patients with neuroblastoma (n=6) and Wilms’ (n=4) tumors were included. Available CBCTs were affinely registered to the planning CT for daily set-up variations corrections. A density override approach assigning air-density to the random air pockets and water-density to the remaining anatomy was used to determine the CBCT and CT dose. Clinical VMAT plans, with a PTV prescribed dose ranging between (14.4- 36) Gy, were re-optimized on the density override CT and re-calculated on each CBCT. Dose-volume statistics of the PTV and kidneys, delineated on each CBCT, were used to compare the daily and cumulative CBCT dose with the reference CT dose. Results: The average patient diameter variation was (0.5 ± 0.7) cm (maximum daily difference of 2.3 cm). The average PTV mean dose difference (MDD) between the CT and the cumulative CBCT plans was (0.1 ± 1.1) % (maximum daily MDD of 2%). A reduction in target coverage up to 3% and 7% was observed for the cumulative and daily CBCT plans, respectively. The averagemore » kidneys’ cumulative MDD was (−2.7 ± 3.6) % (maximum daily MDD of −12%), corresponding to an overdosage. Conclusion: Due to patient’s diameter changes, a target underdosage was assessed. Given the high local tumor control of neuroblastoma and Wilms’ diseases, the need of re-planning might be discarded. However, the assessed kidneys overdosage could represent a problem when the normal tissue tolerance is reached. The necessity of re-planning should then be considered to reduce the risk of long-term renal complications. Due to the poor softtissue contrast on CBCT, MRI-guidance is required to obtain a better assessment of the accumulated dose on the remaining OARs.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Utrecht (Netherlands)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22632193
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ANATOMY; ANIMAL TISSUES; CHILDREN; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; KIDNEYS; NEOPLASMS; NMR IMAGING; PATIENTS; PEDIATRICS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Guerreiro, F, Janssens, G, Seravalli, E, and Raaymakers, B. SU-F-J-63: Abdominal Diameter Changes in Children During Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT): Is Re-Planning Needed?. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955971.
Guerreiro, F, Janssens, G, Seravalli, E, & Raaymakers, B. SU-F-J-63: Abdominal Diameter Changes in Children During Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT): Is Re-Planning Needed?. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955971.
Guerreiro, F, Janssens, G, Seravalli, E, and Raaymakers, B. 2016. "SU-F-J-63: Abdominal Diameter Changes in Children During Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT): Is Re-Planning Needed?". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955971.
@article{osti_22632193,
title = {SU-F-J-63: Abdominal Diameter Changes in Children During Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT): Is Re-Planning Needed?},
author = {Guerreiro, F and Janssens, G and Seravalli, E and Raaymakers, B},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric impact of daily changes in patient’s diameter, due to weight gain/loss and air in the bowel, based on CBCT information during radiotherapy treatment of pediatric abdominal tumors. Methods: 10 pediatric patients with neuroblastoma (n=6) and Wilms’ (n=4) tumors were included. Available CBCTs were affinely registered to the planning CT for daily set-up variations corrections. A density override approach assigning air-density to the random air pockets and water-density to the remaining anatomy was used to determine the CBCT and CT dose. Clinical VMAT plans, with a PTV prescribed dose ranging between (14.4- 36) Gy, were re-optimized on the density override CT and re-calculated on each CBCT. Dose-volume statistics of the PTV and kidneys, delineated on each CBCT, were used to compare the daily and cumulative CBCT dose with the reference CT dose. Results: The average patient diameter variation was (0.5 ± 0.7) cm (maximum daily difference of 2.3 cm). The average PTV mean dose difference (MDD) between the CT and the cumulative CBCT plans was (0.1 ± 1.1) % (maximum daily MDD of 2%). A reduction in target coverage up to 3% and 7% was observed for the cumulative and daily CBCT plans, respectively. The average kidneys’ cumulative MDD was (−2.7 ± 3.6) % (maximum daily MDD of −12%), corresponding to an overdosage. Conclusion: Due to patient’s diameter changes, a target underdosage was assessed. Given the high local tumor control of neuroblastoma and Wilms’ diseases, the need of re-planning might be discarded. However, the assessed kidneys overdosage could represent a problem when the normal tissue tolerance is reached. The necessity of re-planning should then be considered to reduce the risk of long-term renal complications. Due to the poor softtissue contrast on CBCT, MRI-guidance is required to obtain a better assessment of the accumulated dose on the remaining OARs.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955971},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To evaluate two dose optimization strategies for maintaining target volume coverage of inversely-planned post mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) plans during patient motion. Methods: Five patients previously treated with VMAT for PMRT at our clinical were randomly selected for this study. For each patient, two plan optimization strategies were compared. Plan 1 was optimized to a volume that included the physician’s planning target volume (PTV) plus an expansion up to 0.3 cm from the bolus surface. Plan 2 was optimized to the PTV plus an expansion up to 0.3 cm from the patient surface (i.e., not extending into the bolus). VMATmore » plans were optimized to deliver 95% of the prescription to 95% of the PTV while sparing organs at risk based on clinical dose limits. PTV coverage was then evaluated following the simulation of patient shifts by 1.0 cm in the anterior and posterior directions using the treatment planning system. Results: Posterior patient shifts produced a difference in D95% of around 11% in both planning approaches from the non-shifted dose distributions. Coverage of the medial and lateral borders of the evaluation volume was reduced in both the posteriorly shifted plans (Plan 1 and Plan 2). Anterior patient shifts affected Plan 2 more than Plan 1 with a difference in D95% of 1% for Plan 1 versus 6% for Plan 2 from the non-shifted dose distributions. The least variation in PTV dose homogeneity for both shifts was obtained with Plan 1. However, all posteriorly shifted plans failed to deliver 95% of the prescription to 95% of the PTV. Whereas, only a few anteriorly shifted plans failed this criteria. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest both planning volume methods are sensitive to patient motion, but that a PTV extended into a bolus volume is slightly more robust for anterior patient shifts.« less
  • Purpose: To introduce a hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy/intensity modulated radiation therapy (VMAT/IMRT) optimization strategy called FusionArc that combines the delivery efficiency of single-arc VMAT with the potentially desirable intensity modulation possible with IMRT.Methods: A beamlet-based inverse planning system was enhanced to combine the advantages of VMAT and IMRT into one comprehensive technique. In the hybrid strategy, baseline single-arc VMAT plans are optimized and then the current cost function gradients with respect to the beamlets are used to define a metric for predicting which beam angles would benefit from further intensity modulation. Beams with the highest metric values (called themore » gradient factor) are converted from VMAT apertures to IMRT fluence, and the optimization proceeds with the mixed variable set until convergence or until additional beams are selected for conversion. One phantom and two clinical cases were used to validate the gradient factor and characterize the FusionArc strategy. Comparisons were made between standard IMRT, single-arc VMAT, and FusionArc plans with one to five IMRT/hybrid beams.Results: The gradient factor was found to be highly predictive of the VMAT angles that would benefit plan quality the most from beam modulation. Over the three cases studied, a FusionArc plan with three converted beams achieved superior dosimetric quality with reductions in final cost ranging from 26.4% to 48.1% compared to single-arc VMAT. Additionally, the three beam FusionArc plans required 22.4%-43.7% fewer MU/Gy than a seven beam IMRT plan. While the FusionArc plans with five converted beams offer larger reductions in final cost-32.9%-55.2% compared to single-arc VMAT-the decrease in MU/Gy compared to IMRT was noticeably smaller at 12.2%-18.5%, when compared to IMRT.Conclusions: A hybrid VMAT/IMRT strategy was implemented to find a high quality compromise between gantry-angle and intensity-based degrees of freedom. This optimization method will allow patients to be simultaneously planned for dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency without switching between delivery techniques. Example phantom and clinical cases suggest that the conversion of only three VMAT segments to modulated beams may result in a good combination of quality and efficiency.« less
  • 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). 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 twomore » 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. 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. 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.« less
  • Purpose: To compare the plan quality and performance of Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Treatment plan between Seven field (7F) and Nine field(9F) Intensity Modulated Radiotherapies and Single Arc (SA) and Dual Arc (DA) Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy( VMAT). Methods: Retrospective planning study of 16 patients treated in Elekta Synergy Platform (mlci2) by 9F-IMRT were replanned with 7F-IMRT, Single Arc VMAT and Dual Arc VMAT using CMS, Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with Monte Carlo simulation. Target delineation done as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Protocols (RTOG 0225&0615). Dose Prescribed as 70Gy to Planning Target Volumes (PTV70) and 61Gy to PTV61 inmore » 33 fraction as a SIB technique. Conformity Index(CI), Homogeneity Index(HI) were used as analysis parameter for Target Volumes as well as Mean dose and Max dose for Organ at Risk(OAR,s).Treatment Delivery Time(min), Monitor unit per fraction (MU/fraction), Patient specific quality assurance were also analysed. Results: A Poor dose coverage and Conformity index (CI) was observed in PTV70 by 7F-IMRT among other techniques. SA-VMAT achieved poor dose coverage in PTV61. No statistical significance difference observed in OAR,s except Spinal cord (P= 0.03) and Right optic nerve (P=0.03). DA-VMAT achieved superior target coverage, higher CI (P =0.02) and Better HI (P=0.03) for PTV70 other techniques (7F-IMRT/9F-IMRT/SA-VMAT). A better dose spare for Parotid glands and spinal cord were seen in DA-VMAT. The average treatment delivery time were 5.82mins, 6.72mins, 3.24mins, 4.3mins for 7F-IMRT, 9F-IMRT, SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT respectively. Significance difference Observed in MU/fr (P <0.001) and Patient quality assurance pass rate were >95% (Gamma analysis (Γ3mm, 3%). Conclusion: DA-VAMT showed better target dose coverage and achieved better or equal performance in sparing OARs among other techniques. SA-VMAT offered least Treatment Time than other techniques but achieved poor target coverage. DA-VMAT offered shorter delivery time than 7F-IMRT and 9F-IMRT without compromising the plan quality.« less
  • The physician's planning objective is often a uniform dose distribution throughout the planning target volume (PTV), including superficial PTVs on or near the surface of a patient's body. Varian's Eclipse treatment planning system uses a progressive resolution optimizer (PRO), version 8.2.23, for RapidArc dynamic multileaf collimator volumetric modulated arc therapy planning. Because the PRO is a fast optimizer, optimization convergence errors (OCEs) produce dose nonuniformity in the superficial area of the PTV. We present a postsurgical cranial case demonstrating the recursive method our clinic uses to produce RapidArc treatment plans. The initial RapidArc treatment plan generated using one 360{sup o}more » arc resulted in substantial dose nonuniformity in the superficial section of the PTV. We demonstrate the use of multiple arcs to produce improved dose uniformity in this region. We also compare the results of this superficial dose compensation method to the results of a recursive method of dose correction that we developed in-house to correct optimization convergence errors in static intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans. The results show that up to 4 arcs may be necessary to provide uniform dose to the surface of the PTV with the current version of the PRO.« less