Article

Comparing radiation treatments using intensity-modulated beams, multiple arcs, and single arcs.

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (Impact Factor: 4.59). 04/2010; 76(5):1554-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A dosimetric comparison of multiple static-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), multiarc intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT), and single-arc arc-modulated radiation therapy (AMRT) was performed to evaluate their clinical advantages and shortcomings.
Twelve cases were selected for this study, including three head-and-neck, three brain, three lung, and three prostate cases. An IMRT, IMAT, and AMRT plan was generated for each of the cases, with clinically relevant planning constraints. For a fair comparison, the same parameters were used for the IMRT, IMAT, and AMRT planning for each patient.
Multiarc IMAT provided the best plan quality, while single-arc AMRT achieved dose distributions comparable to those of IMRT, especially in the complicated head-and-neck and brain cases. Both AMRT and IMAT showed effective normal tissue sparing without compromising target coverage and delivered a lower total dose to the surrounding normal tissues in some cases.
IMAT provides the most uniform and conformal dose distributions, especially for the cases with large and complex targets, but with a delivery time similar to that of IMRT; whereas AMRT achieves results comparable to IMRT with significantly faster treatment delivery.

1 Bookmark
 · 
107 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main purposes of this study were to 1) investigate the dosimetric quality of uniform scanning proton therapy planning (USPT) for prostate cancer patients with a metal hip prosthesis, and 2) compare the dosimetric results of USPT with that of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Proton plans for prostate cancer (four cases) were generated in XiO treatment planning system (TPS). The beam arrangement in each proton plan consisted of three fields (two oblique fields and one lateral or slightly angled field), and the proton beams passing through a metal hip prosthesis was avoided. Dose calculations in proton plans were performed using the pencil beam algorithm. From each proton plan, planning target volume (PTV) coverage value (i.e., relative volume of the PTV receiving the prescription dose of 79.2 CGE) was recorded. The VMAT prostate planning was done using two arcs in the Eclipse TPS utilizing 6 MV X-rays, and beam entrance through metallic hip prosthesis was avoided. Dose computation in the VMAT plans was done using anisotropic analytical algorithm, and calculated VMAT plans were then normalized such that the PTV coverage in the VMAT plan was the same as in the proton plan of the corresponding case. The dose-volume histograms of calculated treatment plans were used to evaluate the dosimetric quality of USPT and VMAT. In comparison to the proton plans, on average, the maximum and mean doses to the PTV were higher in the VMAT plans by 1.4% and 0.5%, respectively, whereas the minimum PTV dose was lower in the VMAT plans by 3.4%. The proton plans had lower (or better) average homogeneity index (HI) of 0.03 compared to the one for VMAT (HI = 0.04). The relative rectal volume exposed to radiation was lower in the proton plan, with an average absolute difference ranging from 0.1% to 32.6%. In contrast, using proton planning, the relative bladder volume exposed to radiation was higher at high-dose region with an average absolute difference ranging from 0.4% to 0.8%, and lower at low- and medium-dose regions with an average absolute difference ranging from 2.7% to 10.1%. The average mean dose to the rectum and bladder was lower in the proton plans by 45.1% and 22.0%, respectively, whereas the mean dose to femoral head was lower in VMAT plans by an average difference of 79.6%. In comparison to the VMAT, the proton planning produced lower equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for the rectum (43.7 CGE vs. 51.4 Gy) and higher EUD for the femoral head (16.7 CGE vs. 9.5 Gy), whereas both the VMAT and proton planning produced comparable EUDs for the prostate tumor (76.2 CGE vs. 76.8 Gy) and bladder (50.3 CGE vs. 51.1 Gy). The results presented in this study show that the combination of lateral and oblique fields in USPT planning could potentially provide dosimetric advantage over the VMAT for prostate cancer involving a metallic hip prosthesis.
    Journal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics. 01/2014; 15(3):4611.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The radiobiological models describe the effects of the radiation treatment on cancer and healthy cells, and the radiobiological effects are generally characterized by the tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). The purpose of this study was to assess the radiobiological impact of RapidArc planning techniques for prostate cancer in terms of TCP and normal NTCP. A computed tomography data set of ten cases involving low-risk prostate cancer was selected for this retrospective study. For each case, two RapidArc plans were created in Eclipse treatment planning system. The double arc (DA) plan was created using two full arcs and the single arc (SA) plan was created using one full arc. All treatment plans were calculated with anisotropic analytical algorithm. Radiobiological modeling response evaluation was performed by calculating Niemierko's equivalent uniform dose (EUD)-based Tumor TCP and NTCP values. For prostate tumor, the average EUD in the SA plans was slightly higher than in the DA plans (78.10 Gy vs. 77.77 Gy; P = 0.01), but the average TCP was comparable (98.3% vs. 98.3%; P = 0.01). In comparison to the DA plans, the SA plans produced higher average EUD to bladder (40.71 Gy vs. 40.46 Gy; P = 0.03) and femoral heads (10.39 Gy vs. 9.40 Gy; P = 0.03), whereas both techniques produced NTCP well below 0.1% for bladder (P = 0.14) and femoral heads (P = 0.26). In contrast, the SA plans produced higher average NTCP compared to the DA plans (2.2% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.01). Furthermore, the EUD to rectum was slightly higher in the SA plans (62.88 Gy vs. 62.22 Gy; P = 0.01). The SA and DA techniques produced similar TCP for low-risk prostate cancer. The NTCP for femoral heads and bladder was comparable in the SA and DA plans; however, the SA technique resulted in higher NTCP for rectum in comparison with the DA technique.
    Annals of medical and health sciences research. 03/2014; 4(2):167-72.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiation therapy is one of the most commonly used treatment modalities for cancer. Its purpose is to deliver prescribed radiation doses to cancerous targets using high energy radiation beams while sparing nearby healthy organs. The treatment planning process of ra-diotherapy is an optimization problem, where beam parameters, such as directions, shapes, and intensities, can be adjusted in simulations to yield desired dose distributions. This can be applied under the recently developed volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) setup which involves the use of a full-rotation trajectory of the beam about the patient along with a multi-leaf collimator for beam shape sculpt-ing, with notable advantages in shortened treatment time. Treatment plan optimization in this setting, however, can be quite complicated due to constraints arising from the equipment involved. We intro-duce a variational model in the VMAT setup for the optimization of 1 beam shapes and intensities under these constraints. We apply a bi-nary level-set strategy to represent beam shapes and a fast sweeping technique to satisfy beam intensity variation limits. The result is a flow-based shape optimization algorithm that guarantees constraint satisfaction and energy decrease for the generation of improved treat-ment plans in VMAT. Simulations of clinical cases are included to validate our algorithm.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
25 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014