PURPOSE: To develop an optimization method using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and evaluate VMAT plans relative to the standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) approach in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single gantry rotation was modeled using 177 equispaced beams. Multileaf collimator apertures and dose rates were optimized with respect to gantry angle subject to dose-volume-based objectives. Our VMAT implementation used conjugate gradient descent to optimize dose rate, and stochastic sampling to find optimal multileaf collimator leaf positions. A treatment planning study of 11 prostate cancer patients with a prescription dose of 86.4 Gy was performed to compare VMAT with a standard five-field IMRT approach. Plan evaluation statistics included the percentage of planning target volume (PTV) receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95), dose to 95% of PTV (D95), mean PTV dose, tumor control probability, and dosimetric endpoints of normal organs, whereas monitor unit (MU) and delivery time were used to assess delivery efficiency. RESULTS: Patient-averaged PTV V95, D95, mean dose, and tumor control probability in VMAT plans were 96%, 82.6 Gy, 88.5 Gy, and 0.920, respectively, vs. 97%, 84.0 Gy, 88.9 Gy, and 0.929 in IMRT plans. All critical structure dose requirements were met. The VMAT plans presented better rectal wall sparing, with a reduction of 1.5% in normal tissue complication probability. An advantage of VMAT plans was that the average number of MUs (290 MU) was less than for IMRT plans (642 MU). CONCLUSION: The VMAT technique can reduce beam on time by up to 55% while maintaining dosimetric quality comparable to that of the standard IMRT approach.
PURPOSE: To develop an optimization method using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and evaluate VMAT plans relative to the standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) approach in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single gantry rotation was modeled using 177 equispaced beams. Multileaf collimator apertures and dose rates were optimized with respect to gantry angle subject to dose-volume-based objectives. Our VMAT implementation used conjugate gradient descent to optimize dose rate, and stochastic sampling to find optimal multileaf collimator leaf positions. A treatment planning study of 11 prostate cancerpatients with a prescription dose of 86.4 Gy was performed to compare VMAT with a standard five-field IMRT approach. Plan evaluation statistics included the percentage of planning target volume (PTV) receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95), dose to 95% of PTV (D95), mean PTV dose, tumor control probability, and dosimetric endpoints of normal organs, whereas monitor unit (MU) and delivery time were used to assess delivery efficiency. RESULTS:Patient-averaged PTV V95, D95, mean dose, and tumor control probability in VMAT plans were 96%, 82.6 Gy, 88.5 Gy, and 0.920, respectively, vs. 97%, 84.0 Gy, 88.9 Gy, and 0.929 in IMRT plans. All critical structure dose requirements were met. The VMAT plans presented better rectal wall sparing, with a reduction of 1.5% in normal tissue complication probability. An advantage of VMAT plans was that the average number of MUs (290 MU) was less than for IMRT plans (642 MU). CONCLUSION: The VMAT technique can reduce beam on time by up to 55% while maintaining dosimetric quality comparable to that of the standard IMRT approach.
Authors: Martha M Matuszak; Jennifer M Steers; Troy Long; Daniel L McShan; Benedick A Fraass; H Edwin Romeijn; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.071