Norbert Klippel1, Michael Schmücking2, Dario Terribilini2, Andreas Geretschläger2, Daniel M Aebersold2, Peter Manser2. 1. Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. Electronic address: norbert.klippel@insel.ch. 2. Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, the "Progressive Resolution Optimizer PRO3" (Varian Medical Systems) is compared to the previous version "PRO2" with respect to its potential to improve dose sparing to the organs at risk (OAR) and dose coverage of the PTV for head and neck cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For eight head and neck cancer patients, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans were generated in this study. All cases have 2-3 phases and the total prescribed dose (PD) was 60-72 Gy in the PTV. The study is mainly focused on the phase 1 plans, which all have an identical PD of 54 Gy, and complex PTV structures with an overlap to the parotids. Optimization was performed based on planning objectives for the PTV according to ICRU83, and with minimal dose to spinal cord, and parotids outside PTV. In order to assess the quality of the optimization algorithms, an identical set of constraints was used for both, PRO2 and PRO3. The resulting treatment plans were investigated with respect to dose distribution based on the analysis of the dose volume histograms. RESULTS: For the phase 1 plans (PD = 54 Gy) the near maximum dose D2% of the spinal cord, could be minimized to 22 ± 5 Gy with PRO3, as compared to 32 ± 12 Gy with PRO2, averaged for all patients. The mean dose to the parotids was also lower in PRO3 plans compared to PRO2, but the differences were less pronounced. A PTV coverage of V95% = 97 ± 1% could be reached with PRO3, as compared to 86 ± 5% with PRO2. In clinical routine, these PRO2 plans would require modifications to obtain better PTV coverage at the cost of higher OAR doses. CONCLUSION: A comparison between PRO3 and PRO2 optimization algorithms was performed for eight head and neck cancer patients. In general, the quality of VMAT plans for head and neck patients are improved with PRO3 as compared to PRO2. The dose to OARs can be reduced significantly, especially for the spinal cord. These reductions are achieved with better PTV coverage as compared to PRO2. The improved spinal cord sparing offers new opportunities for all types of paraspinal tumors and for re-irradiation of recurrent tumors or second malignancies.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, the "Progressive Resolution Optimizer PRO3" (Varian Medical Systems) is compared to the previous version "PRO2" with respect to its potential to improve dose sparing to the organs at risk (OAR) and dose coverage of the PTV for head and neck cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For eight head and neck cancerpatients, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans were generated in this study. All cases have 2-3 phases and the total prescribed dose (PD) was 60-72 Gy in the PTV. The study is mainly focused on the phase 1 plans, which all have an identical PD of 54 Gy, and complex PTV structures with an overlap to the parotids. Optimization was performed based on planning objectives for the PTV according to ICRU83, and with minimal dose to spinal cord, and parotids outside PTV. In order to assess the quality of the optimization algorithms, an identical set of constraints was used for both, PRO2 and PRO3. The resulting treatment plans were investigated with respect to dose distribution based on the analysis of the dose volume histograms. RESULTS: For the phase 1 plans (PD = 54 Gy) the near maximum dose D2% of the spinal cord, could be minimized to 22 ± 5 Gy with PRO3, as compared to 32 ± 12 Gy with PRO2, averaged for all patients. The mean dose to the parotids was also lower in PRO3 plans compared to PRO2, but the differences were less pronounced. A PTV coverage of V95% = 97 ± 1% could be reached with PRO3, as compared to 86 ± 5% with PRO2. In clinical routine, these PRO2 plans would require modifications to obtain better PTV coverage at the cost of higher OAR doses. CONCLUSION: A comparison between PRO3 and PRO2 optimization algorithms was performed for eight head and neck cancerpatients. In general, the quality of VMAT plans for head and neck patients are improved with PRO3 as compared to PRO2. The dose to OARs can be reduced significantly, especially for the spinal cord. These reductions are achieved with better PTV coverage as compared to PRO2. The improved spinal cord sparing offers new opportunities for all types of paraspinal tumors and for re-irradiation of recurrent tumors or second malignancies.