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

Title: MO-FG-CAMPUS-TeP2-02: First Experiences and Perspectives in Using Direct Multicriteria Optimization (MCO) On Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for Head and Neck Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To report the first experiences and perspectives in using direct multicriteria optimization (MCO) on volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck (H&N) cancer. Methods: Ten prior patients with tumors in representative H&N regions were selected to evaluate direct MCO-VMAT in RayStation v5.0 beta. The patients were previously treated by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO on an Elekta linear accelerator with Agility multileaf collimator. To avoid radiating eyes and shoulders, MCO-VMAT required one to three partial-arc groups, with each group consisting of single or dual arcs. All MCO-VMAT plans were approved by a radiation oncologist. The MCO-VMAT and MCO-IMRT plans were compared using V{sub 100}, D{sub 5}, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) for planning target volume (PTV), D{sub mean} and D{sub 50} for six parallel organs and D{sub max} for five serial organs. Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) was performed using ArcCHECK for MCO-VMAT and Matrixx for MCO-IMRT with results analyzed using gamma criteria of 3%/3mm. Results: MCO-VMAT provided better V{sub 100} (+0.8%) lower D{sub 5}(− 0.3 Gy), lower HI (−0.27) and comparable CI (+0.05). MCO-VMAT decreased D{sub mean} and D{sub 50} for multiple parallel organs in seven of the ten patients. On average the reduction rangedmore » from 2.1 (larynx) to 7.6 Gy (esophagus). For the nasal cavity and nasopharynx plans significant reduction in D{sub max} was observed for optics (up to 11 Gy) brainstem (6.4 Gy), cord (2.1 Gy) and mandible (6.7 Gy). All MCO-VMAT and -IMRT plans passed clinical QA. MCO-VMAT required slightly longer planning time due to the more complex VMAT optimization. The net beam-on time for the MCO-VMAT plans ranged from 80 to 242 seconds, up to 9 minutes shorter than MCO-IMRT. Conclusion: With similar target coverage, reduced organ dose, comparable planning time, and significantly faster treatment, MCO-VMAT is very likely to become the modality of choice in RayStation v5.0 for H&N cancer.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22653906
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; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; NECK; NEOPLASMS; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENTS; PLANNING; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Edgington, Samantha, Cotter, Christopher, Busse, Paul, Crawford, Bruce, and Wang, Yi. MO-FG-CAMPUS-TeP2-02: First Experiences and Perspectives in Using Direct Multicriteria Optimization (MCO) On Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for Head and Neck Cancer. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957360.
Edgington, Samantha, Cotter, Christopher, Busse, Paul, Crawford, Bruce, & Wang, Yi. MO-FG-CAMPUS-TeP2-02: First Experiences and Perspectives in Using Direct Multicriteria Optimization (MCO) On Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for Head and Neck Cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957360.
Edgington, Samantha, Cotter, Christopher, Busse, Paul, Crawford, Bruce, and Wang, Yi. 2016. "MO-FG-CAMPUS-TeP2-02: First Experiences and Perspectives in Using Direct Multicriteria Optimization (MCO) On Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for Head and Neck Cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957360.
@article{osti_22653906,
title = {MO-FG-CAMPUS-TeP2-02: First Experiences and Perspectives in Using Direct Multicriteria Optimization (MCO) On Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for Head and Neck Cancer},
author = {Edgington, Samantha and Cotter, Christopher and Busse, Paul and Crawford, Bruce and Wang, Yi},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To report the first experiences and perspectives in using direct multicriteria optimization (MCO) on volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck (H&N) cancer. Methods: Ten prior patients with tumors in representative H&N regions were selected to evaluate direct MCO-VMAT in RayStation v5.0 beta. The patients were previously treated by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO on an Elekta linear accelerator with Agility multileaf collimator. To avoid radiating eyes and shoulders, MCO-VMAT required one to three partial-arc groups, with each group consisting of single or dual arcs. All MCO-VMAT plans were approved by a radiation oncologist. The MCO-VMAT and MCO-IMRT plans were compared using V{sub 100}, D{sub 5}, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) for planning target volume (PTV), D{sub mean} and D{sub 50} for six parallel organs and D{sub max} for five serial organs. Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) was performed using ArcCHECK for MCO-VMAT and Matrixx for MCO-IMRT with results analyzed using gamma criteria of 3%/3mm. Results: MCO-VMAT provided better V{sub 100} (+0.8%) lower D{sub 5}(− 0.3 Gy), lower HI (−0.27) and comparable CI (+0.05). MCO-VMAT decreased D{sub mean} and D{sub 50} for multiple parallel organs in seven of the ten patients. On average the reduction ranged from 2.1 (larynx) to 7.6 Gy (esophagus). For the nasal cavity and nasopharynx plans significant reduction in D{sub max} was observed for optics (up to 11 Gy) brainstem (6.4 Gy), cord (2.1 Gy) and mandible (6.7 Gy). All MCO-VMAT and -IMRT plans passed clinical QA. MCO-VMAT required slightly longer planning time due to the more complex VMAT optimization. The net beam-on time for the MCO-VMAT plans ranged from 80 to 242 seconds, up to 9 minutes shorter than MCO-IMRT. Conclusion: With similar target coverage, reduced organ dose, comparable planning time, and significantly faster treatment, MCO-VMAT is very likely to become the modality of choice in RayStation v5.0 for H&N cancer.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957360},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) allowed the simultaneous delivery of different doses to different target volumes within a single fraction, an approach called simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). As consequence, the fraction dose to the boost volume can be increased while keeping low doses to the elective volumes, and the number of fractions and overall treatment time will be reduced, translating into better radiobiological effectiveness. In recent years, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been shown to provide similar plan quality with respect to fixed-field IMRT but with large reduction in treatment time and monitor units (MUs) number. However, the feasibility of VMAT whenmore » used with SIB strategy has few investigations to date. We explored the potential of VMAT in a SIB strategy for complex cancer sites. A total of 15 patients were selected, including 5 head-and-neck, 5 high-risk prostate, and 5 rectal cancer cases. Both a double-arc VMAT and a 7-field IMRT plan were generated for each case using Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system for an Elekta Precise linac. Dosimetric indexes for targets and organs at risk (OARs) were compared based on dose-volume histograms. Conformity index, homogeneity index, and dose-contrast index were used for target analyses. The equivalent uniform doses and the normal tissue complication probabilities were calculated for main OARs. MUs number and treatment time were analyzed to score treatment efficiency. Pretreatment dosimetry was performed using 2-dimensional (2D)-array dosimeter. SIB-VMAT plans showed a high level of fluence modulation needed for SIB treatments, high conformal dose distribution, similar target coverage, and a tendency to improve OARs sparing compared with the benchmark SIB-IMRT plans. The median treatment times reduced from 13 to 20 minutes to approximately 5 minutes for all cases with SIB-VMAT, with a MUs reduction up to 22.5%. The 2D-array ion-chambers' measurements reported an agreement of more than 95% for a criterion of 3% to 3 mm. SIB-VMAT was able to combine the advantages of conventional SIB-IMRT with its highly conformal dose distribution and OARs sparing and the advantages of 3D-conformal radiotherapy with its fast delivery.« 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
  • 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: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) affords the potential to decrease radiation therapy-associated toxicity by creating highly conformal dose distributions. However, the inverse planning process can create a suboptimal plan despite meeting all constraints. Multicriteria optimization (MCO) may reduce the time-consuming iteration loop necessary to develop a satisfactory plan while providing information regarding trade-offs between different treatment planning goals. In this exploratory study, we examine the feasibility and utility of MCO in physician plan selection in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods and Materials: The first 10 consecutive patients with LAPC treated with IMRT were evaluated. A database ofmore » plans (Pareto surface) was created that met the inverse planning goals. The physician then navigated to an 'optimal' plan from the point on the Pareto surface at which kidney dose was minimized. Results: Pareto surfaces were created for all 10 patients. A physician was able to select a plan from the Pareto surface within 10 minutes for all cases. Compared with the original (treated) IMRT plans, the plan selected from the Pareto surface had a lower stomach mean dose in 9 of 10 patients, although often at the expense of higher kidney dose than with the treated plan. Conclusion: The MCO is feasible in patients with LAPC and allows the physician to choose a satisfactory plan quickly. Generally, when given the opportunity, the physician will choose a plan with a lower stomach dose. The MCO enables a physician to provide greater active clinical input into the IMRT planning process.« less
  • Purpose: Lack of plan robustness may contribute to local failure in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to treat head and neck (H&N) cancer. Thus we compared plan robustness of VMAT with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods: VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 H&N cancer patients. For each plan, six new perturbed dose distributions were computed — one each for ± 3mm setup deviations along the S-I, A-P and L-R directions. We used three robustness quantification tools: (1) worst-case analysis (WCA); (2) dose-volume histograms (DVHs) band (DVHB); and (3) root-mean-square-dose deviation (RMSD) volume histogram (DDVH). DDVH represents the relative volumemore » (y) on the vertical axis and the RMSD (x) on the horizontal axis. Similar to DVH, this means that y% of the volume of the indicated structure has the RMSD at least x Gy[RBE].The width from the first two methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95 and D5) and the area under the DDVH curves (AUC) for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. In these robustness quantification tools, the smaller the value, the more robust the plan is. Plan robustness evaluation metrics were compared using Wilcoxon test. Results: DVHB showed the width at D95 from IMRT to be larger than from VMAT (unit Gy) [1.59 vs 1.18 (p=0.49)], while the width at D5 from IMRT was found to be slightly larger than from VMAT [0.59 vs 0.54 (p=0.84)]. WCA showed similar results [D95: 3.28 vs 3.00 (p=0.56); D5: 1.68 vs 1.95 (p=0.23)]. DDVH showed the AUC from IMRT to be slightly smaller than from VMAT [1.13 vs 1.15 (p=0.43)]. Conclusion: VMAT plan robustness is comparable to IMRT plan robustness. The plan robustness conclusions from WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter dependent. On the other hand DDVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties on the dose to a volume of interest. NIH/NCI K25CA168984; Eagles Cancer Research Career Development; The Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research Mayo ASU Seed Grant; The Kemper Marley Foundation.« less