Huixiao Chen1, Brian A Winey1, Juliane Daartz1, Kevin S Oh1, John H Shin2, David P Gierga3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: dgierga@partners.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate plan quality and delivery efficiency gains of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus a multicriteria optimization-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (MCO-IMRT) for stereotactic radiosurgery of spinal metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MCO-IMRT plans (RayStation V2.5; RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) of 10 spinal radiosurgery cases using 7-9 beams were developed for clinical delivery, and patients were replanned using VMAT with partial arcs. The prescribed dose was 18 Gy, and target coverage was maximized such that the maximum dose to the planning organ-at-risk volume (PRV) of the spinal cord was 10 or 12 Gy. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints from the clinically acceptable MCO-IMRT plans were utilized for VMAT optimization. Plan quality and delivery efficiency with and without collimator rotation for MCO-IMRT and VMAT were compared and analyzed based upon DVH, planning target volume coverage, homogeneity index, conformity number, cord PRV sparing, total monitor units (MU), and delivery time. RESULTS: The VMAT plans were capable of matching most DVH constraints from the MCO-IMRT plans. The ranges of MU were 4808-7193 for MCO-IMRT without collimator rotation, 3509-5907 for MCO-IMRT with collimator rotation, 4444-7309 for VMAT without collimator rotation, and 3277-5643 for VMAT with collimator of 90 degrees. The MU for the VMAT plans were similar to their corresponding MCO-IMRT plans, depending upon the complexity of the target and PRV geometries, but had a larger range. The delivery times of the MCO-IMRT and VMAT plans, both with collimator rotation, were 18.3 ± 2.5 minutes and 14.2 ± 2.0 minutes, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The MCO-IMRT and VMAT can create clinically acceptable plans for spinal radiosurgery. The MU for MCO-IMRT and VMAT can be reduced significantly by utilizing a collimator rotation following the orientation of the spinal cord. Plan quality for VMAT is similar to MCO-IMRT, with similar MU for both modalities. Delivery times can be reduced by nominally 25% with VMAT.
PURPOSE: To evaluate plan quality and delivery efficiency gains of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus a multicriteria optimization-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (MCO-IMRT) for stereotactic radiosurgery of spinal metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MCO-IMRT plans (RayStation V2.5; RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) of 10 spinal radiosurgery cases using 7-9 beams were developed for clinical delivery, and patients were replanned using VMAT with partial arcs. The prescribed dose was 18 Gy, and target coverage was maximized such that the maximum dose to the planning organ-at-risk volume (PRV) of the spinal cord was 10 or 12 Gy. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints from the clinically acceptable MCO-IMRT plans were utilized for VMAT optimization. Plan quality and delivery efficiency with and without collimator rotation for MCO-IMRT and VMAT were compared and analyzed based upon DVH, planning target volume coverage, homogeneity index, conformity number, cord PRV sparing, total monitor units (MU), and delivery time. RESULTS: The VMAT plans were capable of matching most DVH constraints from the MCO-IMRT plans. The ranges of MU were 4808-7193 for MCO-IMRT without collimator rotation, 3509-5907 for MCO-IMRT with collimator rotation, 4444-7309 for VMAT without collimator rotation, and 3277-5643 for VMAT with collimator of 90 degrees. The MU for the VMAT plans were similar to their corresponding MCO-IMRT plans, depending upon the complexity of the target and PRV geometries, but had a larger range. The delivery times of the MCO-IMRT and VMAT plans, both with collimator rotation, were 18.3 ± 2.5 minutes and 14.2 ± 2.0 minutes, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The MCO-IMRT and VMAT can create clinically acceptable plans for spinal radiosurgery. The MU for MCO-IMRT and VMAT can be reduced significantly by utilizing a collimator rotation following the orientation of the spinal cord. Plan quality for VMAT is similar to MCO-IMRT, with similar MU for both modalities. Delivery times can be reduced by nominally 25% with VMAT.
Authors: Peter C Gerszten; Edward A Monaco; Mubina Quader; Josef Novotny; Jong Oh Kim; John C Flickinger; M Saiful Huq Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2010-04
Authors: Enzhuo M Quan; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; Xiaochun Wang; Rajat J Kudchadker; Jennifer L Johnson; Deborah A Kuban; Andrew K Lee; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kamran A Ahmed; Michael C Stauder; Robert C Miller; Heather J Bauer; Peter S Rose; Kenneth R Olivier; Paul D Brown; Debra H Brinkmann; Nadia N Laack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-02-11 Impact factor: 7.038