Literature DB >> 16029815

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for mesothelioma: impact of multileaf collimator leaf width and pencil beam size on planning quality and delivery efficiency.

X Ronald Zhu1, Karl Prado, H Helen Liu, Thomas M Guerrero, Melenda Jeter, Zhongxing Liao, David Rice, Kenneth Forster, Craig W Stevens.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare treatment plans for multileaf collimators (MLCs) with different leaf widths and different finite pencil beam (FPB) sizes, to determine the planning quality and delivery efficiency of segmented MLC (SMLC) delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computerized tomography images of 10 right-side MPM patients were used for this planning study on a CORVUS treatment-planning system (NOMOS Corporation, Sewickley, PA) for a Varian Millennium 120-MLC (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Three beam models were used. The first model forced two 0.5-cm MLC leaves to move in tandem to simulate a 1-cm leaf-width MLC and a FPB size of 1 x 1 cm2. The second model used 0.5-cm leaves with a FPB size of 0.5 x 1 cm2 (1 cm in the direction of leaf movement). The third model used 0.5-cm leaves, with a FPB size of 0.5 x 0.5 cm2. For optimization, the same dose constraints and beam parameters were used for each data set. Tissue heterogeneity corrections were used during optimization and dose calculation. Plans were optimized such that the clinical target volume received 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Dose distributions to the target and normal structures were evaluated. The number of monitor units, the number of segments, and delivery times were used to evaluate delivery efficiency.
RESULTS: All three beam models could be used for IMRT planning for MPM. The doses to clinical target volume, spinal cord, lung, liver, heart, and contralateral kidney were acceptable with all three beam models. The 0.5 x 0.5-cm2 beam model used the most monitor units (6883 +/- 974 vs. 3332 +/- 406 and 3407 +/- 443 for the 1 x 1-cm2 and 0.5 x 1-cm2 models, respectively) and treated the most segments (4297 +/- 802 vs. 1357 +/- 156 and 1767 +/- 212 for the 1 x 1-cm2 and 0.5 x 1-cm2 models, respectively). The plan generated with the 1 x 1-cm2 model required the least amount of time to deliver.
CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the MPM IMRT plans generated with the three beam models presented here was similar; however, the 1 x 1-cm2 model provided the most efficient delivery of MPM IMRT with the CORVUS planning system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16029815     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.04.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  6 in total

1.  Linear attenuation coefficient and buildup factor of MCP-96 alloy for dose accuracy, beam collimation, and radiation protection.

Authors:  Deidre N Hopkins; Muhammad Maqbool; Mohammed S Islam
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-05-15

2.  Use of plan quality degradation to evaluate tradeoffs in delivery efficiency and clinical plan metrics arising from IMRT optimizer and sequencer compromises.

Authors:  Joel R Wilkie; Martha M Matuszak; Mary Feng; Jean M Moran; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Dosimetric comparison using different multileaf collimeters in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for upper thoracic esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Youling Gong; Shichao Wang; Lin Zhou; Yongmei Liu; Yong Xu; You Lu; Sen Bai; Yuchuan Fu; Qingfeng Xu; Qingfeng Jiang
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Dosimetric effect of multileaf collimator leaf width in intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivery techniques for small- and large-volume targets.

Authors:  S A Yoganathan; Karthick Raj Mani; K J Maria Das; Arpita Agarwal; Shaleen Kumar
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2011-04

5.  Impact of Multi-leaf Collimator Parameters on Head and Neck Plan Quality and Delivery: A Comparison between Halcyon™ and Truebeam® Treatment Delivery Systems.

Authors:  Taoran Li; Ryan Scheuermann; Alexander Lin; Boon-Keng Kevin Teo; Wei Zou; Samuel Swisher-McClure; Michelle Alonso-Basanta; John N Lukens; Alireza Fotouhi Ghiam; Chris Kennedy; Michele M Kim; Dimitris Mihailidis; James M Metz; Lei Dong
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2018-11-28

6.  A single-field integrated boost treatment planning technique for spot scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  Xiaorong Ronald Zhu; Falk Poenisch; Heng Li; Xiaodong Zhang; Narayan Sahoo; Richard Y Wu; Xiaoqiang Li; Andrew K Lee; Eric L Chang; Seungtaek Choi; Thomas Pugh; Steven J Frank; Michael T Gillin; Anita Mahajan; David R Grosshans
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.481

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.