Wolfgang Lechner1, Gabriele Kragl, Dietmar Georg. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna / AKH Wien, Vienna, Austria; Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: wolfgang.lechner@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the differences in treatment plan quality of IMRT and VMAT with and without flattening filter using Pareto optimal fronts, for two treatment sites of different anatomic complexity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pareto optimal fronts (POFs) were generated for six prostate and head-and-neck cancer patients by stepwise reduction of the constraint (during the optimization process) of the primary organ-at-risk (OAR). 9-static field IMRT and 360°-single-arc VMAT plans with flattening filter (FF) and without flattening filter (FFF) were compared. The volume receiving 5 Gy or more (V5 Gy) was used to estimate the low dose exposure. Furthermore, the number of monitor units (MUs) and measurements of the delivery time (T) were used to assess the efficiency of the treatment plans. RESULTS: A significant increase in MUs was found when using FFF-beams while the treatment plan quality was at least equivalent to the FF-beams. T was decreased by 18% for prostate for IMRT with FFF-beams and by 4% for head-and-neck cases, but increased by 22% and 16% for VMAT. A reduction of up to 5% of V5 Gy was found for IMRT prostate cases with FFF-beams. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the POFs showed an at least comparable treatment plan quality of FFF-beams compared to FF-beams for both treatment sites and modalities. For smaller targets the advantageous characteristics of FFF-beams could be better exploited.
PURPOSE: To investigate the differences in treatment plan quality of IMRT and VMAT with and without flattening filter using Pareto optimal fronts, for two treatment sites of different anatomic complexity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pareto optimal fronts (POFs) were generated for six prostate and head-and-neck cancerpatients by stepwise reduction of the constraint (during the optimization process) of the primary organ-at-risk (OAR). 9-static field IMRT and 360°-single-arc VMAT plans with flattening filter (FF) and without flattening filter (FFF) were compared. The volume receiving 5 Gy or more (V5 Gy) was used to estimate the low dose exposure. Furthermore, the number of monitor units (MUs) and measurements of the delivery time (T) were used to assess the efficiency of the treatment plans. RESULTS: A significant increase in MUs was found when using FFF-beams while the treatment plan quality was at least equivalent to the FF-beams. T was decreased by 18% for prostate for IMRT with FFF-beams and by 4% for head-and-neck cases, but increased by 22% and 16% for VMAT. A reduction of up to 5% of V5 Gy was found for IMRT prostate cases with FFF-beams. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the POFs showed an at least comparable treatment plan quality of FFF-beams compared to FF-beams for both treatment sites and modalities. For smaller targets the advantageous characteristics of FFF-beams could be better exploited.
Authors: J Rieber; E Tonndorf-Martini; O Schramm; B Rhein; S Stefanowicz; J Kappes; H Hoffmann; K Lindel; J Debus; S Rieken Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Angèle Dubouloz; Michel Rouzaud; Lev Tsvang; Wilko Verbakel; Mikko Björkqvist; Nadine Linthout; Joana Lencart; Juan María Pérez-Moreno; Zeynep Ozen; Lluís Escude; Thomas Zilli; Raymond Miralbell Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.481