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

Title: SU-F-T-296: Modulated Therapy Down Under: A Survey of IMRT & VMAT Physics Practice in Australia and New Zealand

Abstract

Purpose: A comprehensive survey of Australasian radiation oncology physics departments was undertaken to capture a snapshot of current usage, commissioning and QA practices for intensity-modulated therapies. Methods: An online survey was developed and advertised to Australian and New Zealand radiation oncology physicists through the local college (ACPSEM) in April 2015. The survey consisted of 147 questions in total, covering IMRT, VMAT and Tomotherapy, and details specific to different treatment planning systems. Questions captured detailed information on equipment, policies and procedures for the commissioning and QA of each treatment technique. Results: 41 partial or complete responses were collected, representing 59 departments out of the 78 departments operational. 137 and 84 linacs from these departments were using IMRT and VMAT respectively, from a total 150 linacs. 100% and 78% of respondents were treating with IMRT and VMAT respectively. There are at least 8 different treatment planning systems being used for IMRT or VMAT, and large variations in all aspects of QA policies and procedures. 29 responses indicated 72 methods routinely used for pre-treatment QA, when breaking down by device and analysis type. Similar numbers of departments use field-by-field analysis compared to composite analysis (56% to 44%) while a majority use true gantrymore » angle delivery compared to fixed gantry at 0° (72% to 28%). 19 different implementations of gamma index analysis parameters were reported from 33 responses. A follow-up one-day workshop to highlight the results, discuss the role of QA and share equipment-specific knowledge across users was conducted in November 2015. Conclusion: While IMRT and VMAT are almost universally available in Australasia, large variations in practice indicate a need for national or consensus guidelines.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [2]
  1. Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Sydney (Australia)
  2. (Australia)
  3. School of Physics, University of Sydney (Australia)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648905
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:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CT-GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY; EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES; LINEAR ACCELERATORS

Citation Formats

Barber, J, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Vial, P, and Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres and the Ingham Institute, Sydney. SU-F-T-296: Modulated Therapy Down Under: A Survey of IMRT & VMAT Physics Practice in Australia and New Zealand. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956481.
Barber, J, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Vial, P, & Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres and the Ingham Institute, Sydney. SU-F-T-296: Modulated Therapy Down Under: A Survey of IMRT & VMAT Physics Practice in Australia and New Zealand. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956481.
Barber, J, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Vial, P, and Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres and the Ingham Institute, Sydney. 2016. "SU-F-T-296: Modulated Therapy Down Under: A Survey of IMRT & VMAT Physics Practice in Australia and New Zealand". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956481.
@article{osti_22648905,
title = {SU-F-T-296: Modulated Therapy Down Under: A Survey of IMRT & VMAT Physics Practice in Australia and New Zealand},
author = {Barber, J and School of Physics, University of Sydney and Vial, P and Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres and the Ingham Institute, Sydney},
abstractNote = {Purpose: A comprehensive survey of Australasian radiation oncology physics departments was undertaken to capture a snapshot of current usage, commissioning and QA practices for intensity-modulated therapies. Methods: An online survey was developed and advertised to Australian and New Zealand radiation oncology physicists through the local college (ACPSEM) in April 2015. The survey consisted of 147 questions in total, covering IMRT, VMAT and Tomotherapy, and details specific to different treatment planning systems. Questions captured detailed information on equipment, policies and procedures for the commissioning and QA of each treatment technique. Results: 41 partial or complete responses were collected, representing 59 departments out of the 78 departments operational. 137 and 84 linacs from these departments were using IMRT and VMAT respectively, from a total 150 linacs. 100% and 78% of respondents were treating with IMRT and VMAT respectively. There are at least 8 different treatment planning systems being used for IMRT or VMAT, and large variations in all aspects of QA policies and procedures. 29 responses indicated 72 methods routinely used for pre-treatment QA, when breaking down by device and analysis type. Similar numbers of departments use field-by-field analysis compared to composite analysis (56% to 44%) while a majority use true gantry angle delivery compared to fixed gantry at 0° (72% to 28%). 19 different implementations of gamma index analysis parameters were reported from 33 responses. A follow-up one-day workshop to highlight the results, discuss the role of QA and share equipment-specific knowledge across users was conducted in November 2015. Conclusion: While IMRT and VMAT are almost universally available in Australasia, large variations in practice indicate a need for national or consensus guidelines.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956481},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • With traditional photon therapy to treat large postoperative pancreatic target volume, it often leads to poor tolerance of the therapy delivered and may contribute to interrupted treatment course. This study was performed to evaluate the potential advantage of using passive-scattering (PS) and modulated-scanning (MS) proton therapy (PT) to reduce normal tissue exposure in postoperative pancreatic cancer treatment. A total of 11 patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer who had been previously treated with PS PT in University of Pennsylvania Roberts Proton Therapy Center from 2010 to 2013 were identified. The clinical target volume (CTV) includes the pancreatic tumor bed as wellmore » as the adjacent high-risk nodal areas. Internal (iCTV) was generated from 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), taking into account target motion from breathing cycle. Three-field and 4-field 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 2-arc volumetric-modulated radiation therapy, and 2-field PS and MS PT were created on the patients’ average CT. All the plans delivered 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, 98% of PTV was covered by 95% of the prescription dose and 99% of iCTV received 98% prescription dose. The results show that all the proton plans offer significant lower doses to the left kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), stomach (mean and V{sub 20} {sub Gy}), and cord (maximum dose) compared with all the photon plans, except 3-field 3DCRT in cord maximum dose. In addition, MS PT also provides lower doses to the right kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), liver (mean dose), total bowel (V{sub 20} {sub Gy} and mean dose), and small bowel (V{sub 15} {sub Gy} absolute volume ratio) compared with all the photon plans and PS PT. The dosimetric advantage of PT points to the possibility of treating tumor bed and comprehensive nodal areas while providing a more tolerable treatment course that could be used for dose escalation and combining with radiosensitizing chemotherapy.« less
  • Purpose: This study evaluates the dosimetric differences using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients previously treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy IMRT for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in early stage lung cancer. Methods: We evaluated 9 consecutive medically inoperable lung cancer patients at the start of the SBRT program who were treated with IMRT from November 2010 to October 2011. These patients were treated using 6 MV energy. The 9 cases were then re-planned with VMAT performed with arc therapy using 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) energy with the same organs at risk (OARS) constraints. Data collected formore » the treatment plans included target coverage, beam on time, dose to OARS and gamma pass rate. Results: Five patients were T1N0 and four patients were T2N0 with all tumors less than 5 cm. The average GTV was 13.02 cm3 (0.83–40.87) and average PTV was 44.65 cm3 (14.06–118.08). The IMRT plans had a mean of 7.2 angles (6–9) and 5.4 minutes (3.6–11.1) per plan. The VMAT plans had a mean of 2.8 arcs (2–3) and 4.0 minutes (2.2–6.0) per plan. VMAT had slightly more target coverage than IMRT with average increase in D95 of 2.68% (1.24–5.73) and D99 of 3.65% (0.88–8.77). VMAT produced lower doses to all OARs. The largest reductions were in maximum doses to the spinal cord with an average reduction of 24.1%, esophagus with an average reduction of 22.1%, and lung with an average reduction in the V20 of 16.3% The mean gamma pass rate was 99.8% (99.2–100) at 3 mm and 3% for VMAT with comparable values for IMRT. Conclusion: These findings suggest that using VMAT for SBRT in early stage lung cancer is superior to IMRT in terms of dose coverage, OAR dose and a lower treatment delivery time with a similar gamma pass rate.« 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
  • A small decrease in testosterone level has been documented after prostate irradiation, possibly owing to the incidental dose to the testes. Testicular doses from prostate external beam radiation plans with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were calculated to investigate any difference. Testicles were contoured for 16 patients being treated for localized prostate cancer. For each patient, 2 plans were created: 1 with IMRT and 1 with VMAT. No specific attempt was made to reduce testicular dose. Minimum, maximum, and mean doses to the testicles were recorded for each plan. Of the 16 patients, 4 receivedmore » a total dose of 7800 cGy to the prostate alone, 7 received 8000 cGy to the prostate alone, and 5 received 8000 cGy to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. The mean (range) of testicular dose with an IMRT plan was 54.7 cGy (21.1 to 91.9) and 59.0 cGy (25.1 to 93.4) with a VMAT plan. In 12 cases, the mean VMAT dose was higher than the mean IMRT dose, with a mean difference of 4.3 cGy (p = 0.019). There was a small but statistically significant increase in mean testicular dose delivered by VMAT compared with IMRT. Despite this, it unlikely that there is a clinically meaningful difference in testicular doses from either modality.« less