PURPOSE: Rotational IMRT has been adopted by many clinics for its promise to deliver treatments in a shorter amount of time than other conventional IMRT techniques. In this paper, the authors investigate whether RapidArc is more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT using fixed fields. METHODS: Dosimetric effects of delivery uncertainties in dose rate, gantry angle, and MLC leaf positions were evaluated by incorporating these uncertainties into RapidArc and sliding window IMRT (SW IMRT) treatment plans for five head-and-neck and five prostate cases. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms of original and modified plans were recalculated and compared using Gamma analysis and dose indices of planned treatment volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). Results of Gamma analyses using passing criteria ranging from 1%-1 mm up to 5%-3 mm were reported. RESULTS: Systematic shifts in MLC leaf bank positions of SW-IMRT cases resulted in 2-4 times higher average percent differences than RapidArc cases. Uniformly distributed random variations of 2 mm for active MLC leaves had a negligible effect on all dose distributions. Sliding window cases were much more sensitive to systematic shifts in gantry angle. Dose rate variations during RapidArc must be much larger than typical machine tolerances to affect dose distributions significantly; dynamic IMRT is inherently not susceptible to such variations. CONCLUSIONS: RapidArc deliveries were found to be more tolerant to variations in gantry position and MLC leaf position than SW IMRT. This may be attributed to the fact that the average segmental field size or MLC leaf opening is much larger for RapidArc. Clinically acceptable treatments may be delivered successfully using RapidArc despite large fluctuations in dose rate and gantry position.
PURPOSE: Rotational IMRT has been adopted by many clinics for its promise to deliver treatments in a shorter amount of time than other conventional IMRT techniques. In this paper, the authors investigate whether RapidArc is more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT using fixed fields. METHODS: Dosimetric effects of delivery uncertainties in dose rate, gantry angle, and MLC leaf positions were evaluated by incorporating these uncertainties into RapidArc and sliding window IMRT (SW IMRT) treatment plans for five head-and-neck and five prostate cases. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms of original and modified plans were recalculated and compared using Gamma analysis and dose indices of planned treatment volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). Results of Gamma analyses using passing criteria ranging from 1%-1 mm up to 5%-3 mm were reported. RESULTS: Systematic shifts in MLC leaf bank positions of SW-IMRT cases resulted in 2-4 times higher average percent differences than RapidArc cases. Uniformly distributed random variations of 2 mm for active MLC leaves had a negligible effect on all dose distributions. Sliding window cases were much more sensitive to systematic shifts in gantry angle. Dose rate variations during RapidArc must be much larger than typical machine tolerances to affect dose distributions significantly; dynamic IMRT is inherently not susceptible to such variations. CONCLUSIONS: RapidArc deliveries were found to be more tolerant to variations in gantry position and MLC leaf position than SW IMRT. This may be attributed to the fact that the average segmental field size or MLC leaf opening is much larger for RapidArc. Clinically acceptable treatments may be delivered successfully using RapidArc despite large fluctuations in dose rate and gantry position.
Authors: Jing Cai; Jinbo Yue; Robert McLawhorn; Wensha Yang; Krishni Wijesooriya; Neal E Dunlap; Ke Sheng; Fang-Fang Yin; Stanley H Benedict Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Henry Mok; Tina M Briere; Mary K Martel; Sam Beddar; Marc E Delclos; Sunil Krishnan; Christopher H Crane; Prajnan Das Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-05-06
Authors: C Burman; C S Chui; G Kutcher; S Leibel; M Zelefsky; T LoSasso; S Spirou; Q Wu; J Yang; J Stein; R Mohan; Z Fuks; C C Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wui Ann Woon; Paul B Ravindran; Piyasiri Ekayanake; Subramani Vikraman; Siti Amirah; Yivonne Y F Lim; Christopher H S Vun; Jamsari Khalid Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2018-08-13
Authors: Michael Barnes; Dennis Pomare; Marcus Doebrich; Therese S Standen; Joshua Wolf; Peter Greer; John Simpson Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 2.243