Literature DB >> 23822422

Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Laura Masi1, Raffaela Doro, Virginia Favuzza, Samantha Cipressi, Lorenzo Livi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of plan parameters on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dosimetric accuracy, together with the possibility of scoring plan complexity.
METHODS: 142 clinical VMAT plans initially optimized using a 4° control point (CP) separation were evaluated. All plans were delivered by a 6 MV Linac to a biplanar diode array for patient-specific quality assurance (QA). Local Γ index analysis (3%, 3 mm and 2%, 2 mm) enabled the comparison between delivered and calculated dose. The following parameters were considered for each plan: average leaf travel (LT), modulation complexity score applied to VMAT (MCSv), MU value, and a multiplicative combination of LT and MCSv (LTMCS). Pearson's correlation analysis was performed between Γ passing rates and each parameter. The effects of CP angular separation on VMAT dosimetric accuracy were also analyzed by focusing on plans with high LT values. Forty out of 142 plans with LT above 350 mm were further optimized using a finer angle spacing (3° or 2°) and Γ analysis was performed. The average Γ passing rates obtained at 4° and at 3°∕2° sampling were compared. A further correlation analysis between all parameters and the Γ pass-rates was performed on 142 plans, but including the newly optimized 40 plans (CP every 3° or 2°) in place of the old ones (CP every 4°).
RESULTS: A moderate significant (p < 0.05) correlation between each examined parameter and Γ passing rates was observed for the original 142 plans at 4° CP discretization. A negative correlation was found for LT with Pearson's r absolute values above 0.6, suggesting that a lower dosimetric accuracy may be expected for higher LT values when a 4° CP sampling is used. A positive correlation was observed for MCSv and LTMCS with r values above 0.5. In order to score plan complexity, threshold values of LTMCS were defined. The average Γ passing rates were significantly higher for the plans created using the finer CP spacing (3°∕2°) compared to the plans optimized using the standard 4° spacing (Student t-test p < 0.05). The correlation between LT and passing rates was strongly diminished when plans with finer angular separations were considered, yielding Pearson's r absolute values below 0.45.
CONCLUSIONS: At 4° CP sampling, LT, MCSv, and LTMCS were found to be significantly correlated with VMAT dosimetric accuracy, expressed as Γ pass-rates. These parameters were found to be possible candidates for scoring plan complexity using threshold values. A finer CP separation (3°∕2°) led to a significant increase in dosimetric accuracy for plans with high leaf travel values, and to a decrease in correlation between LT and Γ passing rates. These results indicated that the influence of LT on VMAT dosimetric accuracy can be controlled by reducing CP separation. CP spacing for all plans requiring large leaf motion should not exceed 3°. The reported data were integrated to optimize our clinical workflow for plan creation, optimization, selection among rival plans, and patient-specific QA of VMAT treatments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23822422     DOI: 10.1118/1.4810969

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  58 in total

1.  A study on the correlation between plan complexity and gamma index analysis in patient specific quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  Dhanabalan Rajasekaran; Prakash Jeevanandam; Prabakar Sukumar; Arulpandiyan Ranganathan; Samdevakumar Johnjothi; Vivekanandan Nagarajan
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2014-09-06

2.  The effect of MLC speed and acceleration on the plan delivery accuracy of VMAT.

Authors:  J M Park; H-G Wu; J H Kim; J N K Carlson; K Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: a review of current literature and applications.

Authors:  Sophie Chiavassa; Igor Bessieres; Magali Edouard; Michel Mathot; Alexandra Moignier
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Treatment plan complexity does not predict IROC Houston anthropomorphic head and neck phantom performance.

Authors:  Mallory C Glenn; Victor Hernandez; Jordi Saez; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Shouhao Zhou; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Effectiveness of robust optimization in volumetric modulated arc therapy using 6 and 10 MV flattening filter-free beam therapy planning for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy with a breath-hold technique.

Authors:  Hideharu Miura; Shuichi Ozawa; Yoshiko Doi; Minoru Nakao; Katsumaro Kubo; Masahiko Kenjo; Yasushi Nagata
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 2.724

6.  The role of complexity metrics in a multi-institutional dosimetry audit of VMAT.

Authors:  Conor K McGarry; Christina E Agnew; Mohammad Hussein; Yatman Tsang; Alan McWilliam; Alan R Hounsell; Catharine H Clark
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Technical Note: In silico and experimental evaluation of two leaf-fitting algorithms for MLC tracking based on exposure error and plan complexity.

Authors:  Vincent Caillet; Ricky O'Brien; Douglas Moore; Per Poulsen; Tobias Pommer; Emma Colvill; Amit Sawant; Jeremy Booth; Paul Keall
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Strategies for reducing ovarian dose in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for postoperative uterine cervical cancer.

Authors:  Ueda Yoshihiro; Ohira Shingo; Isono Masaru; Miyazaki Masayoshi; Konishi Koji; Kamiura Shoji; Sumida Iori; Ogawa Kazuhiko; Teshima Teruki
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Dosimetric comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy planning techniques for prostate cancer in the presence of intrafractional organ deformation.

Authors:  Maria Varnava; Iori Sumida; Michio Oda; Keita Kurosu; Fumiaki Isohashi; Yuji Seo; Keisuke Otani; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 2.724

10.  Treatment planning for spinal radiosurgery : A competitive multiplatform benchmark challenge.

Authors:  Christos Moustakis; Mark K H Chan; Jinkoo Kim; Joakim Nilsson; Alanah Bergman; Tewfik J Bichay; Isabel Palazon Cano; Savino Cilla; Francesco Deodato; Raffaela Doro; Jürgen Dunst; Hans Theodor Eich; Pierre Fau; Ming Fong; Uwe Haverkamp; Simon Heinze; Guido Hildebrandt; Detlef Imhoff; Erik de Klerck; Janett Köhn; Ulrike Lambrecht; Britta Loutfi-Krauss; Fatemeh Ebrahimi; Laura Masi; Alan H Mayville; Ante Mestrovic; Maaike Milder; Alessio G Morganti; Dirk Rades; Ulla Ramm; Claus Rödel; Frank-Andre Siebert; Wilhelm den Toom; Lei Wang; Stefan Wurster; Achim Schweikard; Scott G Soltys; Samuel Ryu; Oliver Blanck
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-05-25       Impact factor: 3.621

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.