Are you Jinsong Ye?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)13.08 Total impact

  • Article: Dosimetric impact of breathing motion in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment using image-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of tumor motion on dose delivery in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer, using fixed field intensity- modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). For each of 10 patients with stage I/II non-small-cell pulmonary tumors, a respiration-correlated four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) study was carried out. The internal target volume was delineated on the maximum intensity projection CT, which was reconstructed from the 4DCT dataset. A 5-mm margin was used for generation of the planning target volume. VMAT and five-field IMRT plans were generated using Pinnacle(3) SmartArc and direct machine parameter optimization, respectively. All plans were generated for an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator using 6-MV photons. Simulation was performed to study the interplay between multileaf collimator (MLC) sequences and target movement during the delivery of VMAT and IMRT. For each plan, 4D dose was calculated using deformable image registration of the 4DCT images. Target volume coverage and doses to critical structures calculated using 4D methodology were compared with those calculated using 3D methodology. For all patients included in this study, the interplay effect was found to present limited impact (less than 1% of prescription) on the target dose distribution, especially for SBRT, in which fewer fractions (three fractions) are delivered. Dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV) was, on average, slightly decreased (1% of prescription) in the 4D calculation compared with the 3D calculation. The motion impact on target dose homogeneity was patient-dependent and relatively small. Both VMAT and IMRT plans experienced negligible interplay effects between MLC sequence and tumor motion. For the most part, the 3D doses to the GTV and critical structures provided good approximations of the 4D dose calculations.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 02/2012; 83(2):e251-6. · 4.59 Impact Factor
  • Article: Comparison of anatomy-based, fluence-based and aperture-based treatment planning approaches for VMAT.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has the potential to reduce treatment times while producing comparable or improved dose distributions relative to fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy. In order to take full advantage of the VMAT delivery technique, one must select a robust inverse planning tool. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of VMAT planning techniques of three categories: anatomy-based, fluence-based and aperture-based inverse planning. We have compared these techniques in terms of the plan quality, planning efficiency and delivery efficiency. Fourteen patients were selected for this study including six head-and-neck (HN) cases, and two cases each of prostate, pancreas, lung and partial brain. For each case, three VMAT plans were created. The first VMAT plan was generated based on the anatomical geometry. In the Elekta ERGO++ treatment planning system (TPS), segments were generated based on the beam's eye view (BEV) of the target and the organs at risk. The segment shapes were then exported to Pinnacle TPS followed by segment weight optimization and final dose calculation. The second VMAT plan was generated by converting optimized fluence maps (calculated by the Pinnacle TPS) into deliverable arcs using an in-house arc sequencer. The third VMAT plan was generated using the Pinnacle SmartArc IMRT module which is an aperture-based optimization method. All VMAT plans were delivered using an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator and the plan comparisons were made in terms of plan quality and delivery efficiency. The results show that for cases of little or modest complexity such as prostate, pancreas, lung and brain, the anatomy-based approach provides similar target coverage and critical structure sparing, but less conformal dose distributions as compared to the other two approaches. For more complex HN cases, the anatomy-based approach is not able to provide clinically acceptable VMAT plans while highly conformal dose distributions were obtained using both aperture-based and fluence-based inverse planning techniques. The aperture-based approach provides improved dose conformity than the fluence-based technique in complex cases.
    Physics in Medicine and Biology 11/2010; 55(21):6475-90. · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Article: Comparison of Elekta VMAT with helical tomotherapy and fixed field IMRT: plan quality, delivery efficiency and accuracy.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are arc-based approaches to IMRT delivery. The objective of this study is to compare VMAT to both HT and fixed field IMRT in terms of plan quality, delivery efficiency, and accuracy. Eighteen cases including six prostate, six head-and-neck, and six lung cases were selected for this study. IMRT plans were developed using direct machine parameter optimization in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system. HT plans were developed using a Hi-Art II planning station. VMAT plans were generated using both the Pinnacle3 SmartArc IMRT module and a home-grown arc sequencing algorithm. VMAT and HT plans were delivered using Elekta's PreciseBeam VMAT linac control system (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) and a TomoTherapy Hi-Art II system (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI), respectively. Treatment plan quality assurance (QA) for VMAT was performed using the IBA MatriXX system while an ion chamber and films were used for HT plan QA. The results demonstrate that both VMAT and HT are capable of providing more uniform target doses and improved normal tissue sparing as compared with fixed field IMRT. In terms of delivery efficiency, VMAT plan deliveries on average took 2.2 min for prostate and lung cases and 4.6 min for head-and-neck cases. These values increased to 4.7 and 7.0 min for HT plans. Both VMAT and HT plans can be delivered accurately based on their own QA standards. Overall, VMAT was able to provide approximately a 40% reduction in treatment time while maintaining comparable plan quality to that of HT.
    Medical Physics 03/2010; 37(3):1350-9. · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Article: A generalized inverse planning tool for volumetric-modulated arc therapy.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The recent development in linear accelerator control systems, named volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), has generated significant interest in arc-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The VMAT delivery technique features simultaneous changes in dose rate, gantry angle and gantry rotation speed as well as multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions while radiation is on. In this paper, we describe a generalized VMAT planning tool that is designed to take full advantage of the capabilities of the new linac control systems. The algorithm incorporates all of the MLC delivery constraints such as restrictions on MLC leaf interdigitation and the MLC leaf velocity constraints. A key feature of the algorithm is that it is able to plan for both single- and multiple-arc deliveries. Compared to conventional step-and-shoot IMRT plans, our VMAT plans created using this tool can achieve similar or better plan quality with less MU and better delivery efficiency. The accuracy of the obtained VMAT plans is also demonstrated through plan verifications performed on an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator equipped with a conventional MLC of 1 cm leaf width using a PreciseBeam VMAT linac control system.
    Physics in Medicine and Biology 11/2009; 54(21):6725-38. · 2.83 Impact Factor