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

Title: SU-F-T-388: Comparison of Biophysical Indices in Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole Brain VMAT and IMRT Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans

Abstract

Purpose: To compare biophysical indices of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) treatment plans for whole brain radiation therapy following the NRG-CC001 protocol. Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of fifteen patients were planned with Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System using VMAT (RapidArc) and IMRT techniques. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the whole brain volume excluding a uniform three-dimensional 5mm expansion of the hippocampus volume. Prescribed doses in all plans were 30 Gy delivered over 10 fractions normalized to a minimum of 95% of the target volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose. The NRG Oncology protocol guidelines were followed for contouring and dose-volume constraints. A single radiation oncologist evaluated all treatment plans. Calculations of statistical significance were performed using Student’s paired t-test. Results: All VMAT and IMRT plans met the NRG-CC001 protocol dose-volume criteria. The average equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for the PTV for VMAT vs. IMRT was respectively (19.05±0.33 Gy vs. 19.38±0.47 Gy) for α/β of 2 Gy and (19.47±0.30 Gy vs. 19.84±0.42 Gy) for α/β of 10 Gy. For the PTV, the average mean and maximum doses were 2% and 5% lower in VMAT plans than in IMRTmore » plans, respectively. The average EUD and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the hippocampus in VMAT vs. IMRT plans were (15.28±1.35 Gy vs. 15.65±0.99 Gy, p=0.18) and (0.305±0.012 Gy vs. 0.308±0.008 Gy, p=0.192), respectively. The average EUD and NTCP for the optic chiasm were both 2% higher in VMAT than in IMRT plans. Conclusion: Though statistically insignificant, VMAT plans indicate a lower hippocampus EUD than IMRT plans. Also, a small variation in NTCP was found between plans.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648986
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; HIPPOCAMPUS; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; THREE-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATIONS

Citation Formats

Kendall, E, Ahmad, S, Algan, O, Higby, C, and Hossain, S. SU-F-T-388: Comparison of Biophysical Indices in Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole Brain VMAT and IMRT Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956573.
Kendall, E, Ahmad, S, Algan, O, Higby, C, & Hossain, S. SU-F-T-388: Comparison of Biophysical Indices in Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole Brain VMAT and IMRT Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956573.
Kendall, E, Ahmad, S, Algan, O, Higby, C, and Hossain, S. 2016. "SU-F-T-388: Comparison of Biophysical Indices in Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole Brain VMAT and IMRT Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956573.
@article{osti_22648986,
title = {SU-F-T-388: Comparison of Biophysical Indices in Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole Brain VMAT and IMRT Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans},
author = {Kendall, E and Ahmad, S and Algan, O and Higby, C and Hossain, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To compare biophysical indices of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) treatment plans for whole brain radiation therapy following the NRG-CC001 protocol. Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of fifteen patients were planned with Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System using VMAT (RapidArc) and IMRT techniques. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the whole brain volume excluding a uniform three-dimensional 5mm expansion of the hippocampus volume. Prescribed doses in all plans were 30 Gy delivered over 10 fractions normalized to a minimum of 95% of the target volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose. The NRG Oncology protocol guidelines were followed for contouring and dose-volume constraints. A single radiation oncologist evaluated all treatment plans. Calculations of statistical significance were performed using Student’s paired t-test. Results: All VMAT and IMRT plans met the NRG-CC001 protocol dose-volume criteria. The average equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for the PTV for VMAT vs. IMRT was respectively (19.05±0.33 Gy vs. 19.38±0.47 Gy) for α/β of 2 Gy and (19.47±0.30 Gy vs. 19.84±0.42 Gy) for α/β of 10 Gy. For the PTV, the average mean and maximum doses were 2% and 5% lower in VMAT plans than in IMRT plans, respectively. The average EUD and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the hippocampus in VMAT vs. IMRT plans were (15.28±1.35 Gy vs. 15.65±0.99 Gy, p=0.18) and (0.305±0.012 Gy vs. 0.308±0.008 Gy, p=0.192), respectively. The average EUD and NTCP for the optic chiasm were both 2% higher in VMAT than in IMRT plans. Conclusion: Though statistically insignificant, VMAT plans indicate a lower hippocampus EUD than IMRT plans. Also, a small variation in NTCP was found between plans.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956573},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • An efficient and simple class solution is proposed for hippocampal-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT) planning using the Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT) delivery technique following the NRG Oncology protocol NRG-CC001 treatment planning guidelines. The whole-brain planning target volume (PTV) was subdivided into subplanning volumes that lie in plane and out of plane with the hippocampal-avoidance volume. To further improve VMAT treatment plans, a partial-field dual-arc technique was developed. Both the arcs were allowed to overlap on the in-plane subtarget volume, and in addition, one arc covered the superior out-of-plane sub-PTV, while the other covered the inferior out-of-plane subtarget volume. For allmore » plans (n = 20), the NRG-CC001 protocol dose-volume criteria were met. Mean values of volumes for the hippocampus and the hippocampal-avoidance volume were 4.1 cm{sup 3} ± 1.0 cm{sup 3} and 28.52 cm{sup 3} ± 3.22 cm{sup 3}, respectively. For the PTV, the average values of D{sub 2%} and D{sub 98%} were 36.1 Gy ± 0.8 Gy and 26.2 Gy ± 0.6 Gy, respectively. The hippocampus D{sub 100%} mean value was 8.5 Gy ± 0.2 Gy and the maximum dose was 15.7 Gy ± 0.3 Gy. The corresponding plan quality indices were 0.30 ± 0.01 (homogeneity index), 0.94 ± 0.01 (target conformality), and 0.75 ± 0.02 (confirmation number). The median total monitor unit (MU) per fraction was 806 MU (interquartile range [IQR]: 792 to 818 MU) and the average beam total delivery time was 121.2 seconds (IQR: 120.6 to 121.35 seconds). All plans passed the gamma evaluation using the 5-mm, 4% criteria, with γ > 1 of not more than 9.1% data points for all fields. An efficient and simple planning class solution for HA-WBRT using VMAT has been developed that allows all protocol constraints of NRG-CC001 to be met.« less
  • Purpose: The target volume for Whole Breast Irradiation (WBI) is dictated by location of tumor mass, breast tissue distribution, and involvement of lymph nodes. Dose coverage and Organs at Risk (OARs) sparing can be difficult to achieve in patients with unfavorable thoracic geometries. For these cases, inverse-planned and 3D-conformal prone treatments can be alternatives to traditional supine 3D-conformal plans. A dosimetric comparison can determine which of these techniques achieve optimal target coverage while sparing OARs. Methods: This study included simulation datasets for 8 patients, 5 of whom were simulated in both supine and prone positions. Positioning devices included breast boardsmore » and Vaclok bags for the supine position, and prone breast boards for the prone position. WBI 3-D conformal plans were created for patients simulated in both positions. Additional VMAT and IMRT WBI plans were made for all patients in the supine position. Results: Prone and supine 3D conformal plans had comparable PTV coverage. Prone 3D conformal plans received a significant 50% decrease to V20, V10, V5 and V30% for the ipsilateral lung in contrast to the supine plans. The heart also experienced a 10% decrease in maximum dose in the prone position, and V20, V10, V5 and V2 had significantly lower values than the supine plan. Supine IMRT and VMAT breast plans obtained comparable PTV coverage. The heart experienced a 10% decrease in maximum dose with inverse modulated plans when compared to the supine 3D conformal plan, while V20, V10, V5 and V2 showed higher values with inverse modulated plans than with supine 3D conformal plans. Conclusion: Prone 3D-conformal, and supine inverse planned treatments were generally superior in sparing OARs to supine plans with comparable PTV coverage. IMRT and VMAT plans offer sparing of OARs from high dose regions with an increase of irradiated volume in the low dose regions.« less
  • Purpose: To compare the treatment plan quality and dose gradient near the hippocampus between VMAT (RapidArc) and IMRT delivery techniques for whole brain radiation therapy. Methods: Fifteen patients were evaluated in this retrospective study. All treatments were planned on Varian Eclipse TPS, using 3-Arc VMAT and 9-Field IMRT, following NRG Oncology protocol NRG-CC001 guidelines evaluated by a single radiation oncologist. Prescribed doses in all plans were 30 Gy delivered over 10 fractions normalized to a minimum of 100% of the dose covering 95% of the target volume. Identical contour sets and dose-volume constraints following protocol guidelines were also applied inmore » all plans. A paired t-test analysis was used to compare VMAT and IMRT plans. Results: NRG-CC001 protocol dose-volume constraints were met for all VMAT and IMRT plans. For the planning target volume (PTV), the average values for D2% and D98% were 6% lower and 4% higher in VMAT than in IMRT, respectively. The average mean and maximum hippocampus doses in Gy for VMAT vs IMRT plans were (11.85±0.81 vs. 12.24±0.56, p=0.10) and (16.27±0.78 vs. 16.59±0.71, p=0.24), respectively. In VMAT, the average mean and maximum chiasm doses were 3% and 1% higher than in IMRT plans, respectively. For the left optic nerve, the average mean and maximum doses were 10% and 5% higher in VMAT than in IMRT plans, respectively. These values were 12% and 3% for the right optic nerve. The average percentage of dose gradient around the hippocampus in the 0–5mm and 5–10mm abutted regions for VMAT vs. IMRT were (4.42%±2.22% /mm vs. 3.95%±2.61% /mm, p=0.43) and (4.54%±1.50% /mm vs. 4.39%±1.28% /mm, p=0.73), respectively. Conclusion: VMAT plans can achieve higher hippocampus sparing with a faster dose fall-off than IMRT plans. Though statistically insignificant, VMAT offers better PTV coverage with slightly higher doses to OARs.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampal avoidance and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for one to three brain metastases. Methods and Materials: Ten patients previously treated with stereotactic radiosurgery for one to three brain metastases underwent repeat planning using VMAT. The whole brain prescription dose was 32.25 Gy in 15 fractions, and SIB doses to brain metastases were 63 Gy to lesions >=2.0 cm and 70.8 Gy to lesions <2.0 cm in diameter. The mean dose to the hippocampus was kept at <6 Gy{sub 2}. Plansmore » were optimized for conformity and target coverage while minimizing hippocampal and ocular doses. Plans were evaluated on target coverage, prescription isodose to target volume ratio, conformity number, homogeneity index, and maximum dose to prescription dose ratio. Results: Ten patients had 18 metastases. Mean values for the brain metastases were as follows: conformity number = 0.73 +- 0.10, target coverage = 0.98 +- 0.01, prescription isodose to target volume = 1.34 +- 0.19, maximum dose to prescription dose ratio = 1.09 +- 0.02, and homogeneity index = 0.07 +- 0.02. For the whole brain, the mean target coverage and homogeneity index were 0.960 +- 0.002 and 0.39 +- 0.06, respectively. The mean hippocampal dose was 5.23 +- 0.39 Gy{sub 2}. The mean treatment delivery time was 3.6 min (range, 3.3-4.1 min). Conclusions: VMAT was able to achieve adequate whole brain coverage with conformal hippocampal avoidance and radiosurgical quality dose distributions for one to three brain metastases. The mean delivery time was under 4 min.« less
  • Purpose: Whole Abdomen Radiation Therapy (WART) is used in the treatment of desmoplastic small round cell tumors as well as other tumors with peritoneal dissemination. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is conventionally used to cover the multiple planning target volumes (PTVs) while sparing nearby critical structures, but this approach often requires two isocenters and ≥20 individual treatment fields. Four-field volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) can produce clinically similar treatment plans with the potential to reduce treatment time substantially. Here we examine treatment times and plan robustness for patients undergoing WART. Methods: Twenty patients undergoing WART at our institution were included inmore » this study. Twelve IMRT and 8 VMAT plans utilized upper and lower abdominal isocenters and met similar dose constraints. Treatment times were tabulated from start of daily kV imaging to beam delivery end. Daily treatment couch coordinates were also recorded. From these couch coordinates, difference between actual and planned separation between isocenters was computed. Plan robustness with regard to PTV coverage within the region of field overlap was analyzed for 3 VMAT and 3 IMRT plans assuming a 2σ deviation in isocenter location. Results: The average treatment time for VMAT was 15 minutes shorter than for IMRT (27 minutes vs. 42 minutes). The average deviation in isocenter separation was 0.0 – 0.1 cm in each direction, with a standard deviation of 0.2 – 0.3 cm. Compared with IMRT plans, VMAT plans showed similar loss in PTV coverage for increasing isocenter displacement and similar dose inhomogeneity with decreasing isocenter displacement. Conclusion: Use of VMAT results in substantial time-savings for 2-isocenter whole abdomen radiotherapy plans. VMAT plans show robustness similar to IMRT with respect to isocenter displacement. VMAT should be considered for these very complicated treatments to minimize risk of patient movement during therapy and maximize treatment delivery efficiency.« less