PURPOSE: Flattening filter-free (FFF) beams with higher dose rates and faster delivery are now clinically available. The purpose of this planning study was to compare optimized non-FFF and FFF RapidArc plans for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to validate the accuracy of fast arc delivery. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Ten patients with peripheral lung tumors and 10 with vertebral metastases were planned using RapidArc with a flattened 6-MV photon beam and a 10-MV FFF beam for fraction doses of 7.5-18 Gy. Dosimetry of the target and organs at risk (OAR), number of monitor units (MU), and beam delivery times were assessed. GafChromic EBT2 film measurements of FFF plans were performed to compare calculated and delivered dose distributions. RESULTS: No major dosimetric differences were seen between the two delivery techniques. For lung SBRT plans, conformity indices and OAR doses were similar, although the average MU required were higher with FFF plans. For vertebral SBRT, FFF plans provided comparable PTV coverage, with no significant differences in OAR doses. Average beam delivery times were reduced by a factor of up to 2.5, with all FFF fractions deliverable within 4 min. Measured FFF plans showed high agreement with calculated plans, with more than 99% of the area within the region of interest fulfilling the acceptance criterion. CONCLUSION: The higher dose rate of FFF RapidArc reduces delivery times significantly, without compromising plan quality or accuracy of dose delivery.
PURPOSE: Flattening filter-free (FFF) beams with higher dose rates and faster delivery are now clinically available. The purpose of this planning study was to compare optimized non-FFF and FFF RapidArc plans for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to validate the accuracy of fast arc delivery. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Ten patients with peripheral lung tumors and 10 with vertebral metastases were planned using RapidArc with a flattened 6-MV photon beam and a 10-MV FFF beam for fraction doses of 7.5-18 Gy. Dosimetry of the target and organs at risk (OAR), number of monitor units (MU), and beam delivery times were assessed. GafChromic EBT2 film measurements of FFF plans were performed to compare calculated and delivered dose distributions. RESULTS: No major dosimetric differences were seen between the two delivery techniques. For lung SBRT plans, conformity indices and OAR doses were similar, although the average MU required were higher with FFF plans. For vertebral SBRT, FFF plans provided comparable PTV coverage, with no significant differences in OAR doses. Average beam delivery times were reduced by a factor of up to 2.5, with all FFF fractions deliverable within 4 min. Measured FFF plans showed high agreement with calculated plans, with more than 99% of the area within the region of interest fulfilling the acceptance criterion. CONCLUSION: The higher dose rate of FFF RapidArc reduces delivery times significantly, without compromising plan quality or accuracy of dose delivery.
Authors: Matthew M Gestaut; Nitika Thawani; Sangroh Kim; Veera R Gutti; Sameer Jhavar; Niloyjyoti Deb; Andrew Morrow; Russell A Ward; Jason H Huang; Mehul Patel Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Juliane Rieber; Eric Tonndorf-Martini; Oliver Schramm; Bernhard Rhein; Laila König; Sebastian Adeberg; Eva Meyerhof; Angela Mohr; Jutta Kappes; Hans Hoffmann; Jürgen Debus; Stefan Rieken Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.481