Literature DB >> 19949257

Similarities between static and rotational intensity-modulated plans.

Q Jackie Wu1, Fang-Fang Yin, Ryan McMahon, Xiaofeng Zhu, Shiva K Das.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore similarities between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) techniques in the context of the number of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) segments required to achieve plan objectives, the major factor influencing plan quality. Three clinical cases with increasing complexity were studied: (a) prostate only, (b) prostate and seminal vesicles and (c) prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. Initial 'gold-standard' plans with the maximum possible organ-at-risk sparing were generated for all three cases. For each case, multiple IMRT and IMAT plans were generated with varying intensity levels (IMRT) and arc control points (IMAT), which translate into varying MLC segments in both modalities. The IMAT/IMRT plans were forced to mimic the organ-at-risk sparing and target coverage in the gold-standard plans, thereby only allowing the target dose inhomogeneity to be variable. A higher target dose inhomogeneity (quantified as D5--dose to the highest 5% of target volume) implies that the plan is less capable of modulation. For each case, given a similar number of MLC segments, both IMRT and IMAT plans exhibit similar target dose inhomogeneity, indicating that there is no difference in their ability to provide dose painting. Target dose inhomogeneity remained approximately constant with decreasing segments, but sharply increased below a specific critical number of segments (70, 100, 110 for cases a, b, c, respectively). For the cases studied, IMAT and IMRT plans are similar in their dependence on the number of MLC segments. A minimum critical number of segments are required to ensure adequate plan quality. Future studies are needed to establish the range of minimum critical number of segments for different treatment sites and target-organ geometries.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19949257     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/1/003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  5 in total

1.  Intensity modulated radiation therapy with field rotation--a time-varying fractionation study.

Authors:  Delal Dink; Mark P Langer; Ronald L Rardin; Joseph F Pekny; Gintaras V Reklaitis; Behlul Saka
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2012-01-10

2.  Comparison of total MU and segment areas in VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT plans.

Authors:  Motohiro Kawashima; Shuichi Ozawa; Akihiro Haga; Akira Sakumi; Chie Kurokawa; Satoru Sugimoto; Kumiko Karasawa; Keiichi Nakagawa; Keisuke Sasai
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-07-01

3.  Target tracking using DMLC for volumetric modulated arc therapy: a simulation study.

Authors:  Baozhou Sun; Dharanipathy Rangaraj; Lech Papiez; Swetha Oddiraju; Deshan Yang; H Harold Li
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  The effect of gantry spacing resolution on plan quality in a single modulated arc optimization.

Authors:  Ivaylo B Mihaylov; Bruce Curran; Edward Sternick
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Validation of the relative insensitivity of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan quality to gantry space resolution.

Authors:  Ghulam Murtaza; Stefania Cora; Ehsan Ullah Khan
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 2.724

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.