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

Title: SU-F-T-616: Comparison of Different Techniques Using RTOG0631 Guidelines in Spine SBRT

Abstract

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiosurgery (SBRT) for spine metastases involves irradiation using a single high dose fraction. The purpose of this study was to investigate a Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique which combines volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for spine SBRT in terms of its dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0631 guidelines. Methods: 7 fields IMRT, 2 full arcs VMAT and Hybrid VMAT/IMRT were created for ten previously treated patients. The Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique consisted of 1 full VMAT arc and 5 IMRT fields. Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans were compared with IMRT and VMAT plans in terms of the dose distribution, spinal cord sparing, homogeneity, conformity and gradient indexies, monitor unit (MU) and beam on time (BOT). RTOG 0631 recommendations were applied for treatment planning. All plans were normalized and prescribed to deliver 18.0 Gy in a single fraction to 90% of the target volume. Results: The Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique significantly improved target dose homogeneity and conformity compared with IMRT and VMAT techniques. Providing sharp dose gradient Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans spare the spinal cord and healthy tissue more effectively. Although, both MU and BOT slightly increased in Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans there ismore » no statistically meaningful difference between VMAT and Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans. Conclusion: In IMRT, a smaller volume of healthy tissue can be irradiated in the low dose region, VMAT plans provide better target volume coverage, favorable dose gradient, conformity and better OAR sparing and also they require a much smaller number of MUs and thus a shorter treatment time than IMRT plans. Hybrid plan offers a sinergy through combination of these two techniques with slightly increased number of MU and thus more treatment time.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Ozkok Medipol University, Istanbul, Istanbul (Turkey)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649179
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; HYBRIDIZATION; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY; RECOMMENDATIONS; SPINAL CORD; VERTEBRAE

Citation Formats

Acar, H, Cebe, M, Mabhouti, H, Codel, G, Pacaci, P, Serin, E, Sanli, E, Kucuk, N, Kucukmorkoc, E, Doyuran, M, Canoglu, D, Altinok, A, and Caglar, H. SU-F-T-616: Comparison of Different Techniques Using RTOG0631 Guidelines in Spine SBRT. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956801.
Acar, H, Cebe, M, Mabhouti, H, Codel, G, Pacaci, P, Serin, E, Sanli, E, Kucuk, N, Kucukmorkoc, E, Doyuran, M, Canoglu, D, Altinok, A, & Caglar, H. SU-F-T-616: Comparison of Different Techniques Using RTOG0631 Guidelines in Spine SBRT. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956801.
Acar, H, Cebe, M, Mabhouti, H, Codel, G, Pacaci, P, Serin, E, Sanli, E, Kucuk, N, Kucukmorkoc, E, Doyuran, M, Canoglu, D, Altinok, A, and Caglar, H. 2016. "SU-F-T-616: Comparison of Different Techniques Using RTOG0631 Guidelines in Spine SBRT". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956801.
@article{osti_22649179,
title = {SU-F-T-616: Comparison of Different Techniques Using RTOG0631 Guidelines in Spine SBRT},
author = {Acar, H and Cebe, M and Mabhouti, H and Codel, G and Pacaci, P and Serin, E and Sanli, E and Kucuk, N and Kucukmorkoc, E and Doyuran, M and Canoglu, D and Altinok, A and Caglar, H},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Stereotactic body radiosurgery (SBRT) for spine metastases involves irradiation using a single high dose fraction. The purpose of this study was to investigate a Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique which combines volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for spine SBRT in terms of its dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0631 guidelines. Methods: 7 fields IMRT, 2 full arcs VMAT and Hybrid VMAT/IMRT were created for ten previously treated patients. The Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique consisted of 1 full VMAT arc and 5 IMRT fields. Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans were compared with IMRT and VMAT plans in terms of the dose distribution, spinal cord sparing, homogeneity, conformity and gradient indexies, monitor unit (MU) and beam on time (BOT). RTOG 0631 recommendations were applied for treatment planning. All plans were normalized and prescribed to deliver 18.0 Gy in a single fraction to 90% of the target volume. Results: The Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique significantly improved target dose homogeneity and conformity compared with IMRT and VMAT techniques. Providing sharp dose gradient Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans spare the spinal cord and healthy tissue more effectively. Although, both MU and BOT slightly increased in Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans there is no statistically meaningful difference between VMAT and Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans. Conclusion: In IMRT, a smaller volume of healthy tissue can be irradiated in the low dose region, VMAT plans provide better target volume coverage, favorable dose gradient, conformity and better OAR sparing and also they require a much smaller number of MUs and thus a shorter treatment time than IMRT plans. Hybrid plan offers a sinergy through combination of these two techniques with slightly increased number of MU and thus more treatment time.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956801},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: The novel 3 dimensional (3D)-printed spine quality assurance (QA) phantoms generated by two different 3D-printing technologies, digital light processing (DLP) and Polyjet, were developed and evaluated for spine stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT). Methods: The developed 3D-printed spine QA phantom consisted of an acrylic body and a 3D-printed spine phantom. DLP and Polyjet 3D printers using the high-density acrylic polymer were employed to produce spine-shaped phantoms based on CT images. To verify dosimetric effects, the novel phantom was made it enable to insert films between each slabs of acrylic body phantom. Also, for measuring internal dose of spine, 3D-printedmore » spine phantom was designed as divided laterally exactly in half. Image fusion was performed to evaluate the reproducibility of our phantom, and the Hounsfield unit (HU) was measured based on each CT image. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans to deliver a fraction of a 16 Gy dose to a planning target volume (PTV) based on the two 3D-printing techniques were compared for target coverage and normal organ-sparing. Results: Image fusion demonstrated good reproducibility of the fabricated spine QA phantom. The HU values of the DLP- and Polyjet-printed spine vertebrae differed by 54.3 on average. The PTV Dmax dose for the DLP-generated phantom was about 1.488 Gy higher than for the Polyjet-generated phantom. The organs at risk received a lower dose when the DLP technique was used than when the Polyjet technique was used. Conclusion: This study confirmed that a novel 3D-printed phantom mimicking a high-density organ can be created based on CT images, and that a developed 3D-printed spine phantom could be utilized in patient-specific QA for SBRT. Despite using the same main material, DLP and Polyjet yielded different HU values. Therefore, the printing technique and materials must be carefully chosen in order to accurately produce a patient-specific QA phantom.« less
  • Purpose Volumetric information of the spine captured on CBCT can potentially improve the accuracy in spine SBRT setup that has been commonly performed through 2D radiographs. This work evaluates the setup accuracy in spine SBRT using 6D CBCT image guidance that recently became available on Varian systems. Methods ExacTrac radiographs have been commonly used for Spine SBRT setup. The setup process involves first positioning patients with lasers followed by localization imaging, registration, and repositioning. Verification images are then taken providing the residual errors (ExacTracRE) before beam on. CBCT verification is also acquired in our institute. The availability of both ExacTracmore » and CBCT verifications allows a comparison study. 41 verification CBCT of 16 patients were retrospectively registered with the planning CT enabling 6D corrections, giving CBCT residual errors (CBCTRE) which were compared with ExacTracRE. Results The RMS discrepancies between CBCTRE and ExacTracRE are 1.70mm, 1.66mm, 1.56mm in vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions and 0.27°, 0.49°, 0.35° in yaw, roll and pitch respectively. The corresponding mean discrepancies (and standard deviation) are 0.62mm (1.60mm), 0.00mm (1.68mm), −0.80mm (1.36mm) and 0.05° (0.58°), 0.11° (0.48°), −0.16° (0.32°). Of the 41 CBCT, 17 had high-Z surgical implants. No significant difference in ExacTrac-to-CBCT discrepancy was observed between patients with and without the implants. Conclusion Multiple factors can contribute to the discrepancies between CBCT and ExacTrac: 1) the imaging iso-centers of the two systems, while calibrated to coincide, can be different; 2) the ROI used for registration can be different especially if ribs were included in ExacTrac images; 3) small patient motion can occur between the two verification image acquisitions; 4) the algorithms can be different between CBCT (volumetric) and ExacTrac (radiographic) registrations.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the sensitivity of traditional gamma-index-based fluence measurements for patient-specific measurements in VMAT delivered spine SBRT. Methods: The ten most recent cases for spine SBRT were selected. All cases were planned with Eclipse RapidArc for a TrueBeam STx. The delivery was verified using a point dose measurement with a Pinpoint 3D micro-ion chamber in a Standard Imaging Stereotactic Dose Verification Phantom. Two points were selected for each case, one within the target in a low dose-gradient region and one in the spinal cord. Measurements were localized using on-board CBCT. Cumulative and separate arc measurements were acquired with themore » ArcCheck and assessed using the SNC patient software with a 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm gamma analysis with global normalization and a 10% dose threshold. Correlations between data were determined using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation. Results: For our cohort of patients, the measured doses were higher than calculated ranging from 2.2%–9.7% for the target and 1.0%–8.2% for the spinal cord. There was strong correlation between 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm passing rates (r=0.91). Moderate correlation was found between target and cord dose with a weak fit (r=0.67, R-Square=0.45). The cumulative ArcCheck measurements showed poor correlation with the measured point doses for both the target and cord (r=0.20, r=0.35). If the arcs are assessed separately with an acceptance criteria applied to the minimum passing rate between all arcs, a moderate negative correlation was found for the target and cord (r=−0.48, r= −0.71). The case with the highest dose difference (9.7%) received a passing rate of 97.2% for the cumulative arcs and 87.8% for the minimum with separate arcs. Conclusion: Our data suggest that traditional passing criteria using ArcCheck with cumulative measurements do not correlate well with dose errors. Separate arc analysis shows better correlation but may still miss large dose errors. Point dose verifications are recommended.« less
  • Purpose: Spine SBRT treatments require high dose to PTV, located close to OAR. Treatment time should be short due to patient condition. The objective of this work is to compare HybridARC (HA) with sliding windows IMRT treatment modality Methods: A 6MV photon beam with 1000MU/min (SRS beam) produced by a NovalisTX (Varian/BrainLAB) equipped with HDMLC was used. The TPS was iPlan v4.5.3 (BrainLAB). Treatment plans comparison was done for 5 patients. Dose prescription was 27Gy in 3 fractions. HA used 1 arc plus 3 (HA), 5 (HA5) and 8 (HA8) IMRT fields. HA plans used OAR high. Between 60–40% ofmore » the prescribed dose was given by the arc. IMRT plans used 15 beams. Treatment times, MU, CI, V50% and V20% was used for plans comparisons. Results: Assuming IMRT plan as reference, the treatment time was reduced by −14.6% with HA8, −8.6% with HA5 and −23% with HA3. Increasing arc dose proportion in HA (arc MU > 2000) requires 2 or more arcs which increments treatment time. HA3 and HA5 exhibits beam hold off for fixed IMRT fields which in some cases need to be split in 2 segments. MU varied +4% with HA8, +3.7% with HA5 and −5% with HA3. CI increased +5% with HA8, +23% with HA5 and +37% with H3. V50% increased +5% with HA8, +43% with HA5 and +62% with HA3. V20% increased +13.2% with HA8, +7.6% with HA5 and +1% with HA3. OARs doses were keep within tolerances in all plans. Conclusion: HybridARC for spine SBRT with 8 fix IMRT gantry angle shows a treatment time reduction, comparable MU and similar dose conformation to dMLC IMRT. HybridARC with 5 or 3 fix IMRT fields produce undesirable beam hold off, worse dose conformation and increments the total volume with 50% of the prescribed dose.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this work was to quantify the dosimetric impact of Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm compared to Pencil Beam (PB) on Spine SBRT with HybridARC (HA) and sliding windows IMRT (dMLC) treatment modality. Methods: A 6MV beam (1000MU/min) produced by a Novalis TX (BrainLAB-Varian) equipped with HDMLC was used. HA uses 1 arc plus 8 IMRT beams (arc weight between 60–40%) and dIMRT 15 beams. Plans were calculated using iPlan v.4.5.3 (BrainLAB) and the treatment dose prescription was 27Gy in 3 fractions. Dose calculation was done by PB (4mm spatial resolution) with heterogeneity correction and MCmore » dose to water (4mm spatial resolution and 4% mean variance). PTV and spinal cord dose comparison were done. Study was done on 12 patients. IROC Spine Phantom was used to validate HA and quantify dose variation using PB and MC algorithm. Results: The difference between PB and MC for PTV D98%, D95%, Dmean, D2% were 2.6% [−5.1, 6.8], 0.1% [−4.2, 5.4], 0.9% [−1.5, 3.8] and 2.4% [−0.5, 8.3]. The difference between PB and MC for spinal cord Dmax, D1.2cc and D0.35cc were 5.3% [−6.4, 18.4], 9% [−7.0, 17.0] and 7.6% [−0.6, 14.8] respectively. IROC spine phantom shows PTV TLD dose variation of 0.98% for PB and 1.01% for MC. Axial and sagittal film plane gamma index (5%-3mm) was 95% and 97% for PB and 95% and 99% for MC. Conclusion: PB slightly underestimates the dose for the PTV. For the spinal cord PB underestimates the dose and dose differences could be as high as 18% which could have unexpected clinical impact. CI shows no variation between PB and MC for both treatment modalities Treatment modalities have no impact with the dose calculation algorithms used. Following the IROC pass-fail criteria, treatment acceptance requirement was fulfilled for PB and MC.« less