PURPOSE: A planning study was performed to evaluate RapidArc (RA), a volumetric modulated arc technique, on malignant pleural mesothelioma. The benchmark was conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The computed tomography data sets of 6 patients were included. The plans for IMRT with nine fixed beams were compared against double-modulated arcs with a single isocenter. All plans were optimized for 15-MV photon beams. The dose prescription was 54 Gy to the planning target volume. The planning objectives for the planning target volume were a minimal dose of >95% and maximal dose of <107%. For the organs at risk, the parameters were as follows: contralateral lung, percentage of volume receiving 5 Gy (V(5 Gy)) <60%, V(20 Gy) < 10%, mean <10.0 Gy; liver, V(30 Gy) <33%, mean <31 Gy; heart, V(45 Gy) <30%, V(50 Gy) <20%, dose received by 1% of the volume (D(1%)) <60 Gy; contralateral kidney, V(15 Gy) <20%; spine, D(1%) <45 Gy; esophagus, V(55 Gy) <30%; and spleen, V(40 Gy) <50%. The monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were scored to measure the treatment efficiency. The pretreatment portal dosimetry scored delivery to the calculation agreement with the Gamma Agreement Index. RESULTS: RA and IMRT provided equivalent coverage and homogeneity. Both techniques fulfilled objectives on organs at risk with a tendency of RA to improve sparing. The conformity index was 1.9 +/- 0.1 for RA and IMRT. The number of MU/2 Gy was 734 +/- 82 for RA and 2,195 +/- 317 for IMRT. The planning vs. delivery agreement revealed a Gamma Agreement Index for IMRT of 96.0% +/- 2.6% and for RA of 95.7% +/- 1.5%. The treatment time was 3.7 +/- 0.3 min for RA and 13.4 +/- 0.1 min for IMRT. CONCLUSION: RA demonstrated compared with conventional IMRT, similar target coverage and better dose sparing to the organs at risks. The number of MUs and the time required to deliver a 2-Gy fraction were much lower for RA, allowing the possibility to incorporate this technique in the treatment options for mesothelioma patients. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: A planning study was performed to evaluate RapidArc (RA), a volumetric modulated arc technique, on malignant pleural mesothelioma. The benchmark was conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The computed tomography data sets of 6 patients were included. The plans for IMRT with nine fixed beams were compared against double-modulated arcs with a single isocenter. All plans were optimized for 15-MV photon beams. The dose prescription was 54 Gy to the planning target volume. The planning objectives for the planning target volume were a minimal dose of >95% and maximal dose of <107%. For the organs at risk, the parameters were as follows: contralateral lung, percentage of volume receiving 5 Gy (V(5 Gy)) <60%, V(20 Gy) < 10%, mean <10.0 Gy; liver, V(30 Gy) <33%, mean <31 Gy; heart, V(45 Gy) <30%, V(50 Gy) <20%, dose received by 1% of the volume (D(1%)) <60 Gy; contralateral kidney, V(15 Gy) <20%; spine, D(1%) <45 Gy; esophagus, V(55 Gy) <30%; and spleen, V(40 Gy) <50%. The monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were scored to measure the treatment efficiency. The pretreatment portal dosimetry scored delivery to the calculation agreement with the Gamma Agreement Index. RESULTS:RA and IMRT provided equivalent coverage and homogeneity. Both techniques fulfilled objectives on organs at risk with a tendency of RA to improve sparing. The conformity index was 1.9 +/- 0.1 for RA and IMRT. The number of MU/2 Gy was 734 +/- 82 for RA and 2,195 +/- 317 for IMRT. The planning vs. delivery agreement revealed a Gamma Agreement Index for IMRT of 96.0% +/- 2.6% and for RA of 95.7% +/- 1.5%. The treatment time was 3.7 +/- 0.3 min for RA and 13.4 +/- 0.1 min for IMRT. CONCLUSION:RA demonstrated compared with conventional IMRT, similar target coverage and better dose sparing to the organs at risks. The number of MUs and the time required to deliver a 2-Gy fraction were much lower for RA, allowing the possibility to incorporate this technique in the treatment options for mesotheliomapatients. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: S Lorentini; M Amichetti; L Spiazzi; S Tonoli; S M Magrini; F Fellin; M Schwarz Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Daniel R Gomez; David S Hong; Pamela K Allen; James S Welsh; Reza J Mehran; Anne S Tsao; Zhongxing Liao; Stephen D Bilton; Ritsuko Komaki; David C Rice Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 15.609