PURPOSE: Whole abdominopelvic radiation therapy (WAPRT) is a treatment option in the palliation of patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. With conventional techniques, kidneys and liver are the dose- and homogeneity-limiting organs. We developed a planning strategy for intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) and report on the treatment plans of the first 5 treated patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five consecutive patients with histologically proven relapsed ovarian cancer were sent to our department for WAPRT. The target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were delineated on 0.5-cm-thick CT slices. The clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as the total peritoneal cavity. CTV and kidneys were expanded with 0.5 cm. In a preset range of 8 degrees interspaced gantry angles, machine states were generated with an anatomy-based segmentation tool. Machine states of the same class were stratified in arcs. The optimization of IMAT was done in several steps, using a biophysical objective function. These steps included weight optimization of machine states, leaf position optimization adapted to meet the maximal leaf speed constraint, and planner-interactive optimization of the start and stop angles. The final control points (machine states plus associated cumulative monitor unit counts) were calculated using a collapsed cone convolution/superposition algorithm. For comparison, two conventional plans (CONV) were made, one with two fields (CONV2), and one with four fields (CONV4). In these CONV plans, dose to the kidneys was limited by cerrobend blocks. The IMAT and the CONV plans were normalized to a median dose of 33 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Monomer/polymer gel dosimetry was used to assess the dosimetric accuracy of the IMAT planning and delivery method. RESULTS: The median volume of the PTV was 8306 cc. The mean treatment delivery time over 4 patients was 13.8 min. A mean of 444 monitor units was needed for a fraction dose of 150 cGy. The fraction of the PTV volume receiving more than 90% of the prescribed dose (V(90)) was 9% higher for the IMAT plan than for the CONV4 plan (89.9% vs. 82.5%). Outside a build-up region of 0.8 cm and 1 cm away from both kidneys, the inhomogeneity in the PTV was 15.1% for the IMAT plans and 24.9% for the CONV4 plans (for CONV2 plans, this was 34.9%). The median dose to the kidneys in the IMAT plans was lower for all patients. The 95th percentile dose for the kidneys was significantly higher for the IMAT plans than for the CONV4 and CONV2 plans (28.2 Gy vs. 22.2 Gy and 22.6 Gy for left kidney, respectively). No relevant differences were found for liver. The gel-measured dose was within clinical planning constraints. CONCLUSION: IMAT was shown to be deliverable in an acceptable time slot and to produce dose distributions that are more homogeneous than those obtained with a CONV plan, with at least equal sparing of the OARs.
PURPOSE: Whole abdominopelvic radiation therapy (WAPRT) is a treatment option in the palliation of patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. With conventional techniques, kidneys and liver are the dose- and homogeneity-limiting organs. We developed a planning strategy for intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) and report on the treatment plans of the first 5 treated patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five consecutive patients with histologically proven relapsed ovarian cancer were sent to our department for WAPRT. The target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were delineated on 0.5-cm-thick CT slices. The clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as the total peritoneal cavity. CTV and kidneys were expanded with 0.5 cm. In a preset range of 8 degrees interspaced gantry angles, machine states were generated with an anatomy-based segmentation tool. Machine states of the same class were stratified in arcs. The optimization of IMAT was done in several steps, using a biophysical objective function. These steps included weight optimization of machine states, leaf position optimization adapted to meet the maximal leaf speed constraint, and planner-interactive optimization of the start and stop angles. The final control points (machine states plus associated cumulative monitor unit counts) were calculated using a collapsed cone convolution/superposition algorithm. For comparison, two conventional plans (CONV) were made, one with two fields (CONV2), and one with four fields (CONV4). In these CONV plans, dose to the kidneys was limited by cerrobend blocks. The IMAT and the CONV plans were normalized to a median dose of 33 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Monomer/polymer gel dosimetry was used to assess the dosimetric accuracy of the IMAT planning and delivery method. RESULTS: The median volume of the PTV was 8306 cc. The mean treatment delivery time over 4 patients was 13.8 min. A mean of 444 monitor units was needed for a fraction dose of 150 cGy. The fraction of the PTV volume receiving more than 90% of the prescribed dose (V(90)) was 9% higher for the IMAT plan than for the CONV4 plan (89.9% vs. 82.5%). Outside a build-up region of 0.8 cm and 1 cm away from both kidneys, the inhomogeneity in the PTV was 15.1% for the IMAT plans and 24.9% for the CONV4 plans (for CONV2 plans, this was 34.9%). The median dose to the kidneys in the IMAT plans was lower for all patients. The 95th percentile dose for the kidneys was significantly higher for the IMAT plans than for the CONV4 and CONV2 plans (28.2 Gy vs. 22.2 Gy and 22.6 Gy for left kidney, respectively). No relevant differences were found for liver. The gel-measured dose was within clinical planning constraints. CONCLUSION: IMAT was shown to be deliverable in an acceptable time slot and to produce dose distributions that are more homogeneous than those obtained with a CONV plan, with at least equal sparing of the OARs.
Authors: C Baldock; Y De Deene; S Doran; G Ibbott; A Jirasek; M Lepage; K B McAuley; M Oldham; L J Schreiner Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Katrien Vandecasteele; Wilfried De Neve; Werner De Gersem; Louke Delrue; Leen Paelinck; Amin Makar; Valérie Fonteyne; Carlos De Wagter; Geert Villeirs; Gert De Meerleer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.621