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

Title: Dosimetric comparison of single-beam multi-arc and 2-beam multi-arc VMAT optimization in the Monaco treatment planning system

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric and practical effects of the Monaco treatment planning system “max arcs-per-beam” optimization parameter in pelvic radiotherapy treatments. We selected for this study a total of 17 previously treated patients with a range of pelvic disease sites including prostate (9), bladder (1), uterus (3), rectum (3), and cervix (1). For each patient, 2 plans were generated, one using an arc-per-beam setting of “1” and another with an arc-per-beam setting of “2” using the volumes and constraints established from the initial clinical treatments. All constraints and dose coverage objects were kept the same between plans, and all plans were normalized to 99.7% to ensure 100% of the planning target volume (PTV) received 95% of the prescription dose. Plans were evaluated for PTV conformity, homogeneity, number of monitor units, number of control points, and overall plan acceptability. Treatment delivery time, patient-specific quality assurance procedures, and the impact on clinical workflow were also assessed. We found that for complex-shaped target volumes (small central volumes with extending arms to cover nodal regions), the use of 2 arc-per-beam (2APB) parameter setting achieved significantly lower average dose-volume histogram values for the rectum V{sub 20} (p = 0.0012) and bladdermore » V{sub 30} (p = 0.0036) while meeting the high dose target constraints. For simple PTV shapes, we found reduced monitor units (13.47%, p = 0.0009) and control points (8.77%, p = 0.0004) using 2APB planning. In addition, we found a beam delivery time reduction of approximately 25%. In summary, the dosimetric benefit, although moderate, was improved over a 1APB setting for complex PTV, and equivalent in other cases. The overall reduced delivery time suggests that the use of mulitple arcs per beam could lead to reduced patient-on-table time, increased clinical throughput, and reduced medical physics quality assurance effort.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ;  [3];  [1];  [2];  [3]; ; ; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22685193
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2017 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BEAMS; BLADDER; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; LIMITING VALUES; MONITORS; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENTS; PLANNING; PROSTATE; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; UTERUS; QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Citation Formats

Kalet, Alan M., E-mail: amkalet@uw.edu, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, Richardson, Hannah L., Nikolaisen, Darrin A., Cao, Ning, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, Lavilla, Myra A., Dempsey, Claire, Meyer, Juergen, Koh, Wui-Jin, Russell, Kenneth J., and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. Dosimetric comparison of single-beam multi-arc and 2-beam multi-arc VMAT optimization in the Monaco treatment planning system. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2017.02.001.
Kalet, Alan M., E-mail: amkalet@uw.edu, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, Richardson, Hannah L., Nikolaisen, Darrin A., Cao, Ning, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, Lavilla, Myra A., Dempsey, Claire, Meyer, Juergen, Koh, Wui-Jin, Russell, Kenneth J., & Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. Dosimetric comparison of single-beam multi-arc and 2-beam multi-arc VMAT optimization in the Monaco treatment planning system. United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2017.02.001.
Kalet, Alan M., E-mail: amkalet@uw.edu, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, Richardson, Hannah L., Nikolaisen, Darrin A., Cao, Ning, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, Lavilla, Myra A., Dempsey, Claire, Meyer, Juergen, Koh, Wui-Jin, Russell, Kenneth J., and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. Sat . "Dosimetric comparison of single-beam multi-arc and 2-beam multi-arc VMAT optimization in the Monaco treatment planning system". United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2017.02.001.
@article{osti_22685193,
title = {Dosimetric comparison of single-beam multi-arc and 2-beam multi-arc VMAT optimization in the Monaco treatment planning system},
author = {Kalet, Alan M., E-mail: amkalet@uw.edu and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington and Richardson, Hannah L. and Nikolaisen, Darrin A. and Cao, Ning and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington and Lavilla, Myra A. and Dempsey, Claire and Meyer, Juergen and Koh, Wui-Jin and Russell, Kenneth J. and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington},
abstractNote = {The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric and practical effects of the Monaco treatment planning system “max arcs-per-beam” optimization parameter in pelvic radiotherapy treatments. We selected for this study a total of 17 previously treated patients with a range of pelvic disease sites including prostate (9), bladder (1), uterus (3), rectum (3), and cervix (1). For each patient, 2 plans were generated, one using an arc-per-beam setting of “1” and another with an arc-per-beam setting of “2” using the volumes and constraints established from the initial clinical treatments. All constraints and dose coverage objects were kept the same between plans, and all plans were normalized to 99.7% to ensure 100% of the planning target volume (PTV) received 95% of the prescription dose. Plans were evaluated for PTV conformity, homogeneity, number of monitor units, number of control points, and overall plan acceptability. Treatment delivery time, patient-specific quality assurance procedures, and the impact on clinical workflow were also assessed. We found that for complex-shaped target volumes (small central volumes with extending arms to cover nodal regions), the use of 2 arc-per-beam (2APB) parameter setting achieved significantly lower average dose-volume histogram values for the rectum V{sub 20} (p = 0.0012) and bladder V{sub 30} (p = 0.0036) while meeting the high dose target constraints. For simple PTV shapes, we found reduced monitor units (13.47%, p = 0.0009) and control points (8.77%, p = 0.0004) using 2APB planning. In addition, we found a beam delivery time reduction of approximately 25%. In summary, the dosimetric benefit, although moderate, was improved over a 1APB setting for complex PTV, and equivalent in other cases. The overall reduced delivery time suggests that the use of mulitple arcs per beam could lead to reduced patient-on-table time, increased clinical throughput, and reduced medical physics quality assurance effort.},
doi = {10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2017.02.001},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 2,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Sat Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Sat Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric and practical effects of the Monaco treatment planning system “max arcs-per-beam” optimization parameter in pelvic radiotherapy treatments. Methods: A total of 17 previously treated patients were selected for this study with a range of pelvic disease site including prostate(9), bladder(1), uterus(3), rectum(3), and cervix(1). For each patient, two plans were generated, one using a arc-per-beam setting of ‘1’ and another with setting of ‘2’. The setting allows the optimizer to add a gantry direction change, creating multiple arc passes per beam sequence. Volumes and constraints established from the initialmore » clinical treatments were used for planning. All constraints and dose coverage objects were kept the same between plans, and all plans were normalized to 99.7% to ensure 100% of the PTV received 95% of the prescription dose. We evaluated the PTV conformity index, homogeneity index, total monitor units, number of control points, and various dose volume histogram (DVH) points for statistical comparison (alpha=0.05). Results: We found for the 10 complex shaped target volumes (small central volumes with extending bilateral ‘arms’ to cover nodal regions) that the use of 2 arcs-per-beam achieved significantly lower average DVH values for the bladder V20 (p=0.036) and rectum V30 (p=0.001) while still meeting the high dose target constraints. DVH values for the simpler, more spherical PTVs were not found significantly different. Additionally, we found a beam delivery time reduction of approximately 25%. Conclusion: In summary, the dosimetric benefit, while moderate, was improved over a 1 arc-per-beam setting for complex PTVs, and equivalent in other cases. The overall reduced delivery time suggests that the use of multiple arcs-per-beam could lead to reduced patient on table time, increased clinical throughput, and reduced medical physics quality assurance effort.« less
  • Purpose: To compare the plan quality and performance of Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Treatment plan between Seven field (7F) and Nine field(9F) Intensity Modulated Radiotherapies and Single Arc (SA) and Dual Arc (DA) Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy( VMAT). Methods: Retrospective planning study of 16 patients treated in Elekta Synergy Platform (mlci2) by 9F-IMRT were replanned with 7F-IMRT, Single Arc VMAT and Dual Arc VMAT using CMS, Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with Monte Carlo simulation. Target delineation done as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Protocols (RTOG 0225&0615). Dose Prescribed as 70Gy to Planning Target Volumes (PTV70) and 61Gy to PTV61 inmore » 33 fraction as a SIB technique. Conformity Index(CI), Homogeneity Index(HI) were used as analysis parameter for Target Volumes as well as Mean dose and Max dose for Organ at Risk(OAR,s).Treatment Delivery Time(min), Monitor unit per fraction (MU/fraction), Patient specific quality assurance were also analysed. Results: A Poor dose coverage and Conformity index (CI) was observed in PTV70 by 7F-IMRT among other techniques. SA-VMAT achieved poor dose coverage in PTV61. No statistical significance difference observed in OAR,s except Spinal cord (P= 0.03) and Right optic nerve (P=0.03). DA-VMAT achieved superior target coverage, higher CI (P =0.02) and Better HI (P=0.03) for PTV70 other techniques (7F-IMRT/9F-IMRT/SA-VMAT). A better dose spare for Parotid glands and spinal cord were seen in DA-VMAT. The average treatment delivery time were 5.82mins, 6.72mins, 3.24mins, 4.3mins for 7F-IMRT, 9F-IMRT, SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT respectively. Significance difference Observed in MU/fr (P <0.001) and Patient quality assurance pass rate were >95% (Gamma analysis (Γ3mm, 3%). Conclusion: DA-VAMT showed better target dose coverage and achieved better or equal performance in sparing OARs among other techniques. SA-VMAT offered least Treatment Time than other techniques but achieved poor target coverage. DA-VMAT offered shorter delivery time than 7F-IMRT and 9F-IMRT without compromising the plan quality.« less
  • Purpose: To commission the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx machine. Methods: The commissioning of Monte-Carlo (MC), Collapsed Cone (CC) and electron Monte-Carlo (eMC) beam models was performed through a series of measurements and calculations in medium and in water. In medium measurements relied Octavius 4D QA system with the 1000 SRS detector array for field sizes less than 4 cm × 4 cm and the 1500 detector array for larger field sizes. Heterogeneity corrections were validated using a custom built phantom. Prior to clinical implementation, an end to end testing of a Prostate and H&N VMAT plansmore » was performed. Results: Using a 0.5% uncertainty and 2 mm grid sizes, Tables I and II summarize the MC validation at 6 MV and 18 MV in both medium and water. Tables III and IV show similar comparisons for CC. Using the custom heterogeneity phantom setup of Figure 1 and IGRT guidance summarized in Figure 2, Table V lists the percent pass rate for a 2%, 2 mm gamma criteria at 6 and 18 MV for both MC and CC. The relationship between MC calculations settings of uncertainty and grid size and the gamma passing rate for a prostate and H&N case is shown in Table VI. Table VII lists the results of the eMC calculations compared to measured data for clinically available applicators and Table VIII for small field cutouts. Conclusion: MU calculations using MC are highly sensitive to uncertainty and grid size settings. The difference can be of the order of several per cents. MC is superior to CC for small fields and when using heterogeneity corrections, regardless of field size, making it more suitable for SRS, SBRT and VMAT deliveries. eMC showed good agreement with measurements down to 2 cm − 2 cm field size.« less
  • Purpose: Due to limited commissioning time, we previously only released our True beam non-FFF mode for prostate treatment. Clinical demand now pushes us to release the non-FFF mode for SRT/SBRT treatment. When re-planning on True beam previously treated SRT/SBRT cases on iX machine we found the patient specific QA pass rate was worse than iX’s, though the 2Gy/fx prostate Result had been as good. We hypothesize that in TPS the True beam DLG and MLC transmission values, of those measured during commissioning could not yet provide accurate SRS/SBRT dosimetry. Hence this work is to investigate how the TPS DLG andmore » transmission value affects Rapid Arc plans’ dosimetric accuracy. Methods: We increased DLG and transmission value of True beam in TPS such that their percentage differences against the measured matched those of iX’s. We re-calculated 2 SRT, 1 SBRT and 2 prostate plans, performed patient specific QA on these new plans and compared the results to the previous. Results: With DLG and transmission value set respectively 40 and 8% higher than the measured, the patient specific QA pass rate (at 3%/3mm) improved from 95.0 to 97.6% vs previous iX’s 97.8% in the case of SRT. In the case of SBRT, the pass rate improved from 75.2 to 93.9% vs previous iX’s 92.5%. In the case of prostate, the pass rate improved from 99.3 to 100%. The maximum dose difference in plans before and after adjusting DLG and transmission was approximately 1% of the prescription dose among all plans. Conclusion: The impact of adjusting DLG and transmission value on dosimetry might be the same among all Rapid Arc plans regardless hypofractionated or not. The large variation observed in patient specific QA pass rate might be due to the data analysis method in the QA software being more sensitive to hypofractionated plans.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric indices of Cyberknife versus Linac for localised prostate cancer Methods: In this study, twenty patients were taken from Cyberknife Multiplan TPS v 4.6.0. All these patients underwent hypo fractionated boost treatment for localised prostate cancer in Cyberknife with the prescription dose of 18Gy in 3 fractions. For each patient VMAT stereotactic plans were generated in Monaco TPS v 5.0 using Elekta beam modulator MLC machine for 6MV photon beam. The plans quality were evaluated by comparing dosimetry indices such that D95, D90, D5 for target volume and V100, V80, V50,more » V30 for critical organs. The p values were calculated for target and OAR to ascertain the significant differences. Results: For each case, D95 of target coverage was achieved with 100% prescription dose with p value of 0.9998. The p value for D90, D5 and V100 for linac and Cyberknife plans was 0.9938, 0.9918 and 0.9838 respectively. For rectum, rectum-PTV and bladder doses were significantly less in Cyberknife compared to linac plans. For rectum, rectum-PTV and bladder at V100 the p value is 0.2402, 0.002, and 0.1615 respectively. Other indices V80, V50 and V30 were comparable in both plans. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that both linac and Cyberknife plans were shown adequate target coverage, while in Cyberknife the treatment time is longer and more MUs to be delivered. However, better conformity, lesser doses to the critical organs and dose gradient outside target for localised prostate treatment were achieved in Cyberknife plans due to multiple non coplanar beam arrangements.« less