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

Title: SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To determine from retrospective study the most appropriate technique for targeting small borderline operable pancreatic cancer surrounding blood vessels by evaluating the dosimetry and normal tissue sparing achievable using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Methods: Treatment plans from ten patients who have undergone treatment with a prescribed dose of 4950 cGy, at 275 cGy per fraction, were analyzed. All plans were replanned using Eclipse TPS (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with complementary VMAT or IMRT techniques to obtain paired data sets for comparison. The coverage to at least 95% of the planned target volume (PTV) was normalized to receive 100% of the prescription dose. The normal tissue constraints followed the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines and the organs at risks (OARs) were liver, kidneys, spinal cord and bowel. The plan evaluation was based on conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), uniformity index (UI), DVH parameters, and student’s-t statistics (2 tails). Results: The VMAT technique delivered less maximum dose to the right kidney, left kidney, total kidney, liver, spinal cord, and bowel by 9.3%, 5.9%, 6.7%, 3.9%, 15.1%, 3.9%, and 4.3%, respectively. The averaged V15 for themore » total kidney was 10.21% for IMRT and 7.29% for VMAT. The averaged V20 for the bowel was 19.89% for IMRT and 14.06% for VMAT. On average, the CI for IMRT was 1.20 and 1.16 for VMAT (p = 0.20). The HI was 0.08 for both techniques (p = 0.91) and UI was 1.05 and 1.06 for IMRT and VMAT respectively (p = 0.59). Conclusion: Both techniques achieve adequate PTV coverage. Although VMAT techniques show better normal tissue sparing from excessive dose, no significant differences were observed. Slight discrepancies may rise from different versions of calculation algorithms.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648992
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; ANIMAL TISSUES; BLOOD VESSELS; DOSIMETRY; KIDNEYS; NEOPLASMS; PANCREAS; PLANT TISSUES; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SPINAL CORD

Citation Formats

Harpool, K, Schnell, E, Herman, T, Ahmad, S, and De La Fuente Herman, T. SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956580.
Harpool, K, Schnell, E, Herman, T, Ahmad, S, & De La Fuente Herman, T. SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956580.
Harpool, K, Schnell, E, Herman, T, Ahmad, S, and De La Fuente Herman, T. Wed . "SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956580.
@article{osti_22648992,
title = {SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer},
author = {Harpool, K and Schnell, E and Herman, T and Ahmad, S and De La Fuente Herman, T},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To determine from retrospective study the most appropriate technique for targeting small borderline operable pancreatic cancer surrounding blood vessels by evaluating the dosimetry and normal tissue sparing achievable using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Methods: Treatment plans from ten patients who have undergone treatment with a prescribed dose of 4950 cGy, at 275 cGy per fraction, were analyzed. All plans were replanned using Eclipse TPS (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with complementary VMAT or IMRT techniques to obtain paired data sets for comparison. The coverage to at least 95% of the planned target volume (PTV) was normalized to receive 100% of the prescription dose. The normal tissue constraints followed the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines and the organs at risks (OARs) were liver, kidneys, spinal cord and bowel. The plan evaluation was based on conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), uniformity index (UI), DVH parameters, and student’s-t statistics (2 tails). Results: The VMAT technique delivered less maximum dose to the right kidney, left kidney, total kidney, liver, spinal cord, and bowel by 9.3%, 5.9%, 6.7%, 3.9%, 15.1%, 3.9%, and 4.3%, respectively. The averaged V15 for the total kidney was 10.21% for IMRT and 7.29% for VMAT. The averaged V20 for the bowel was 19.89% for IMRT and 14.06% for VMAT. On average, the CI for IMRT was 1.20 and 1.16 for VMAT (p = 0.20). The HI was 0.08 for both techniques (p = 0.91) and UI was 1.05 and 1.06 for IMRT and VMAT respectively (p = 0.59). Conclusion: Both techniques achieve adequate PTV coverage. Although VMAT techniques show better normal tissue sparing from excessive dose, no significant differences were observed. Slight discrepancies may rise from different versions of calculation algorithms.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956580},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: Due to the high dose per fraction in SBRT, dose conformity and dose fall-off are critical. In patients with cervical cancer, rapid dose fall-off is particularly important to limit dose to the nearby rectum, small bowel, and bladder. This study compares the target volume dose fall-off for two radiation delivery techniques, fixed-field IMRT & VMAT, using non-coplanar beam geometries. Further comparisons are made between 6 and 10MV photon beam energies. Methods: Eleven (n=11) patients were planned in Pinnacle3 v9.10 with a NovalisTx (HD120 MLC) machine model using 6 and 10 MV photons. The following three techniques were used: (1)more » IMRT (10 non-coplanar beams) (2) Dual, coplanar 360° VMAT arcs (4° spacing), and (3) Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs (1 full arc and dual partial arcs). All plans were normalized such that 98% of the PTV received at least 28Gy/4Fx. Dose was calculated using a 2.0mm isotropic dose grid. To assess dose fall-off, twenty concentric 2mm thick rings were created around the PTV. The maximum dose in each ring was recorded and the data was fitted to model dose fall-off. A separate analysis was performed by separating target volumes into small (0–50cc), medium (51–80cc), and large (81–110cc). Results: Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs showed the best dose fall-off for all patients evaluated. All fitted regressions had an R{sup 2}≥0.99. At 10mm from the PTV edge, 10 MV VMAT3-arc had an absolute improvement in dose fall-off of 3.8% and 6.9% over IMRT and VMAT2-arc, respectively. At 30mm, 10 MV VMAT3-arc had an absolute improvement of 12.0% and 7.0% over IMRT and VMAT2-arc, respectively. Faster dose fall-off was observed for small volumes as opposed to medium and large ones—9.6% at 20mm. Conclusion: Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs offer the sharpest dose fall-off for cervical SBRT plans. This improvement is most pronounced when treating smaller target volumes.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate a novel Integrated VMAT/IMRT technique which combines volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: 2 partial arcs VMAT, 5-field IMRT and Integrated VMAT/IMRT plans were created for 17 patients with NSCLC. The Integrated VMAT/IMRT technique consisted of 2 partial VMAT arcs and 5 IMRT fields. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) for Integrated VMAT/IMRT was compared with IMRT and VMAT. The monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated. For each plan, a dry run was performedmore » to assess the dosimetric accuracy with MatriXX from IBA. Results: Integrated VMAT/IMRT significantly improved the target conformity and homogeneity. The V30 of normal lung for Integrated plans was significantly lower than IMRT plans (8.4% vs 9.2%; p<0.05). The V5 and mean lung dose (MLD) of normal lung for Integrated plans were 9.8% and 4.6% lower than VMAT plans (p<0.05). The maximum dose of spinal cord for Integrated plans was 4.9 Gy lower than IMRT plans (p<0.05). The mean delivery time of IMRT, VMAT and Integrated plans was 280 s, 114 s, and 327 s, respectively. The mean MUs needed for IMRT, VMAT and Integrated plans were 933, 512, and 737, respectively. The gamma pass rates were beyond 90% at the 3%/3 mm criteria when the gantry angles were set to 0° for pretreatment verification. Conclusion: Integrated VMAT/IMRT technique significantly reduced V5, V10 and MLD of normal lung compared with VMAT, and the irradiated volume of the OARs receiving medium to high dose with fewer MUs compared with IMRT. Integrated VMAT/IMRT technique can be a feasible radiotherapy technique with better plan quality and accurately delivered on the linear accelerator. Ruijie Yang was funded by the grant project: National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81071237). Other authors have no competing interest for this work.« less
  • Purpose: SBRT shows excellent tumor control and toxicity rates for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (PCA). Herein, we evaluate the feasibility of using VMAT with ABC for PCA SBRT. Methods: Nine PCA patients previously treated via SBRT utilizing 11-beam step-and-shoot IMRT technique in our center were retrospectively identified, among whom eight patients received 3300cGy in 5 fractions while one received 3000cGy in 5 fractions. A VMAT plan was generated on each patient’s planning CT in Pinnacle v9.8 on Elekta Synergy following the same PCA SBRT clinical protocol. Three partial arcs (182°–300°, 300°-60°, and 60°-180°) with 2°/4° control-point spacing weremore » used. The dosimetric difference between the VMAT and the original IMRT plans was analyzed. IMRT QA was performed for the VMAT plans using MapCheck2 in MapPHAN and the total delivery time was recorded. To mimic the treatment situation with ABC, where patients hold their breath for 20–30 seconds, the delivery was intentionally interrupted every 20–30 seconds. For each plan, the QA was performed with and without beam interruption. Gamma analysis (2%/2mm) was used to compare the planned and measured doses. Results: All VMAT plans with 2mm dose grid passed the clinic protocol with similar PTV coverage and OARs sparing, where PTV V-RxDose was 92.7±2.1% (VMAT) vs. 92.1±2.6% (IMRT), and proximal stomach V15Gy was 3.60±2.69 cc (VMAT) vs. 4.80±3.13 cc (IMRT). The mean total MU and delivery time of the VMAT plans were 2453.8±531.1 MU and 282.1±56.0 seconds. The gamma passing rates of absolute dose were 94.9±3.4% and 94.5±4.0% for delivery without and with interruption respectively, suggesting the dosimetry of VMAT delivery with ABC for SBRT won’t be compromised. Conclusion: This study suggests that PCA SBRT using VMAT with ABC is a feasible technique without compromising plan dosimetry. The combination of VMAT with ABC will potentially reduce the SBRT treatment time.« less
  • Purpose: We performed a retrospective dosimetric comparison study between the robustness optimized Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (RO-IMPT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and the non-coplanar 4? intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). These methods represent the most advanced radiation treatment methods clinically available. We compare their dosimetric performance for head and neck cancer treatments with special focus on the OAR sparing near the tumor volumes. Methods: A total of 11 head and neck cases, which include 10 recurrent cases and one bilateral case, were selected for the study. Different dose levels were prescribed to tumor target depending on disease and location. Threemore » treatment plans were created on commercial TPS systems for a novel noncoplanar 4π method (20 beams), VMAT, and RO-IMPT technique (maximum 4 fields). The maximum patient positioning error was set to 3 mm and the maximum proton range uncertainty was set to 3% for the robustness optimization. Line dose profiles were investigated for OARs close to tumor volumes. Results: All three techniques achieved 98% coverage of the CTV target and most photon plans had less than 110% of the hot spots. The RO-IMPT plans show superior tumor dose homogeneity than 4? and VMAT plans. Although RO-IMPT has greater R50 dose spillage to the surrounding normal tissue than 4π and VMAT, the RO-IMPT plans demonstrate better or comparable OAR (parotid, mandible, carotid, oral cavity, pharynx, and etc.) sparing for structures closely abutting tumor targets. Conclusion: The RO-IMPT’s ability of OAR sparing is benchmarked against the C-arm linac based non-coplanar 4π technique and the standard VMAT method. RO-IMPT consistently shows better or comparable OAR sparing even for tissue structures closely abutting treatment target volume. RO-IMPT further reduces treatment uncertainty associated with proton therapy and delivers robust treatment plans to both unilateral and bilateral head and neck cancer patients with desirable treatment time.« less
  • Purpose: To present a 3D QA method and clinical results for 550 patients. Methods: Five hundred and fifty patient treatment deliveries (400 IMRT, 75 SBRT and 75 VMAT) from various treatment sites, planned on Raystation treatment planning system (TPS), were measured on three beam-matched Elekta linear accelerators using IBA’s COMPASS system. The difference between TPS computed and delivered dose was evaluated in 3D by applying three statistical parameters to each structure of interest: absolute average dose difference (AADD, 6% allowed difference), absolute dose difference greater than 6% (ADD6, 4% structure volume allowed to fail) and 3D gamma test (3%/3mm DTA,more » 4% structure volume allowed to fail). If the allowed value was not met for a given structure, manual review was performed. The review consisted of overlaying dose difference or gamma results with the patient CT, scrolling through the slices. For QA to pass, areas of high dose difference or gamma must be small and not on consecutive slices. For AADD to manually pass QA, the average dose difference in cGy must be less than 50cGy. The QA protocol also includes DVH analysis based on QUANTEC and TG-101 recommended dose constraints. Results: Figures 1–3 show the results for the three parameters per treatment modality. Manual review was performed on 67 deliveries (27 IMRT, 22 SBRT and 18 VMAT), for which all passed QA. Results show that statistical parameter AADD may be overly sensitive for structures receiving low dose, especially for the SBRT deliveries (Fig.1). The TPS computed and measured DVH values were in excellent agreement and with minimum difference. Conclusion: Applying DVH analysis and different statistical parameters to any structure of interest, as part of the 3D QA protocol, provides a comprehensive treatment plan evaluation. Author G. Gueorguiev discloses receiving travel and research funding from IBA for unrelated to this project work. Author B. Crawford discloses receiving travel funding from IBA for unrelated to this project work.« less