Ghulam Murtaza1, Shahid Mehmood2, Shahid Rasul3, Imran Murtaza4, Ehsan Ullah Khan4. 1. School of Health Sciences, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan. 2. Medical Physics, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. 3. Oncology Department, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. 4. Physics Department, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of study was to evaluate the dosimetric effect of collimator-rotation on VMAT plan quality, when using limited aperture multileaf collimator of Elekta Beam Modulator™ providing a maximum aperture of 21 cm × 16 cm. BACKGROUND: The increased use of VMAT technique to deliver IMRT from conventional to very specialized treatments present a challenge in plan optimization. In this study VMAT plans were optimized for prostate and head and neck cancers using Elekta Beam-ModulatorTM, whereas previous studies were reported for conventional Linac aperture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: VMAT plans for nine of each prostate and head-and-neck cancer patients were produced using the 6 MV photon beam for Elekta-SynergyS® Linac using Pinnacle3 treatment planning system. Single arc, dual arc and two combined independent-single arcs were optimized for collimator angles (C) 0°, 90° and 0°-90° (0°-90°; i.e. the first-arc was assigned C0° and second-arc was assigned C90°). A treatment plan comparison was performed among C0°, C90° and C(0°-90°) for single-arc dual-arc and two independent-single-arcs VMAT techniques to evaluate the influence of extreme collimator rotations (C0° and 90°) on VMAT plan quality. Plan evaluation criteria included the target coverage, conformity index, homogeneity index and doses to organs at risk. A 'two-sided student t-test' (p ≤ 0.05) was used to determine if there was a significant difference in dose volume indices of plans. RESULTS: For both prostate and head-and-neck, plan quality at collimator angles C0° and C(0°-90°) was clinically acceptable for all VMAT-techniques, except SA for head-and-neck. Poorer target coverage, higher normal tissue doses and significant p-values were observed for collimator angle 90° when compared with C0° and C(0°-90°). CONCLUSIONS: A collimator rotation of 0° provided significantly better target coverage and sparing of organs-at-risk than a collimator rotation of 90° for all VMAT techniques.
AIM: The aim of study was to evaluate the dosimetric effect of collimator-rotation on VMAT plan quality, when using limited aperture multileaf collimator of Elekta Beam Modulator™ providing a maximum aperture of 21 cm × 16 cm. BACKGROUND: The increased use of VMAT technique to deliver IMRT from conventional to very specialized treatments present a challenge in plan optimization. In this study VMAT plans were optimized for prostate and head and neck cancers using Elekta Beam-ModulatorTM, whereas previous studies were reported for conventional Linac aperture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: VMAT plans for nine of each prostate and head-and-neck cancer patients were produced using the 6 MV photon beam for Elekta-SynergyS® Linac using Pinnacle3 treatment planning system. Single arc, dual arc and two combined independent-single arcs were optimized for collimator angles (C) 0°, 90° and 0°-90° (0°-90°; i.e. the first-arc was assigned C0° and second-arc was assigned C90°). A treatment plan comparison was performed among C0°, C90° and C(0°-90°) for single-arc dual-arc and two independent-single-arcs VMAT techniques to evaluate the influence of extreme collimator rotations (C0° and 90°) on VMAT plan quality. Plan evaluation criteria included the target coverage, conformity index, homogeneity index and doses to organs at risk. A 'two-sided student t-test' (p ≤ 0.05) was used to determine if there was a significant difference in dose volume indices of plans. RESULTS: For both prostate and head-and-neck, plan quality at collimator angles C0° and C(0°-90°) was clinically acceptable for all VMAT-techniques, except SA for head-and-neck. Poorer target coverage, higher normal tissue doses and significant p-values were observed for collimator angle 90° when compared with C0° and C(0°-90°). CONCLUSIONS: A collimator rotation of 0° provided significantly better target coverage and sparing of organs-at-risk than a collimator rotation of 90° for all VMAT techniques.
Authors: Vincent Grégoire; Peter Levendag; Kian K Ang; Jacques Bernier; Marijel Braaksma; Volker Budach; Cliff Chao; Emmanuel Coche; Jay S Cooper; Guy Cosnard; Avraham Eisbruch; Samy El-Sayed; Bahman Emami; Cai Grau; Marc Hamoir; Nancy Lee; Philippe Maingon; Karin Muller; Hervé Reychler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Karl Bzdusek; Henrik Friberger; Kjell Eriksson; Björn Hårdemark; David Robinson; Michael Kaus Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: David Palma; Emily Vollans; Kerry James; Sandy Nakano; Vitali Moiseenko; Richard Shaffer; Michael McKenzie; James Morris; Karl Otto Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wilko F A R Verbakel; Johan P Cuijpers; Daan Hoffmans; Michael Bieker; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038