PURPOSE: To investigate whether a new multileaf collimator with a leaf width of 5 mm (MLC-5) over the entire field size of 40 x 40 cm(2) improves plan quality compared to a leaf width of 10 mm (MLC-10) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with integrated boost for head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A plan comparison was performed for ten patients with head and neck cancer. For each patient, seven plans were calculated: one plan with MLC-10 and nine beams, four plans with MLC-5 and nine beams (with different intensity levels and two-dimensional median filter sizes [2D-MFS]), and one seven-beam plan with MLC-5 and MLC-10, respectively. Isocenter, beam angles and planning constraints were not changed. Mean values of common plan parameters over all ten patients were estimated, and plan groups of MLC-5 and MLC-10 with nine and seven beams were compared. RESULTS: The use of MLC-5 led to a significantly higher conformity index and an improvement of the 90% coverage of PTV1 (planning target volume) and PTV2 compared with MLC-10. This was noted in the nine- and seven-beam plans. Within the nine-beam group with MLC-5, a reduction of the segment number by up to 25% at reduced intensity levels and for increased 2D-MFS did not markedly worsen plan quality. Interestingly, a seven-beam IMRT with MLC-5 was inferior to a nine-beam IMRT with MLC-5, but superior to a nine-beam IMRT with MLC-10. CONCLUSION: The use of an MLC-5 has significant advantages over an MLC-10 with respect to target coverage and protection of normal tissues in step-and-shoot IMRT of head and neck cancer.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether a new multileaf collimator with a leaf width of 5 mm (MLC-5) over the entire field size of 40 x 40 cm(2) improves plan quality compared to a leaf width of 10 mm (MLC-10) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with integrated boost for head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A plan comparison was performed for ten patients with head and neck cancer. For each patient, seven plans were calculated: one plan with MLC-10 and nine beams, four plans with MLC-5 and nine beams (with different intensity levels and two-dimensional median filter sizes [2D-MFS]), and one seven-beam plan with MLC-5 and MLC-10, respectively. Isocenter, beam angles and planning constraints were not changed. Mean values of common plan parameters over all ten patients were estimated, and plan groups of MLC-5 and MLC-10 with nine and seven beams were compared. RESULTS: The use of MLC-5 led to a significantly higher conformity index and an improvement of the 90% coverage of PTV1 (planning target volume) and PTV2 compared with MLC-10. This was noted in the nine- and seven-beam plans. Within the nine-beam group with MLC-5, a reduction of the segment number by up to 25% at reduced intensity levels and for increased 2D-MFS did not markedly worsen plan quality. Interestingly, a seven-beam IMRT with MLC-5 was inferior to a nine-beam IMRT with MLC-5, but superior to a nine-beam IMRT with MLC-10. CONCLUSION: The use of an MLC-5 has significant advantages over an MLC-10 with respect to target coverage and protection of normal tissues in step-and-shoot IMRT of head and neck cancer.
Authors: R Topolnjak; U A van der Heide; G J Meijer; B van Asselen; C P J Raaijmakers; J J W Lagendijk Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Dirk Rades; Nina D Seibold; Maximilian P Gebhard; Frank Noack; Steven E Schild; Christoph Thorns Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: A Zabel-du Bois; S Nill; S Ulrich; U Oelfke; B Rhein; P Haering; S Milker-Zabel; A Schwahofer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 3.621