AIM: To assess the performance of the monitor unit (MU) Objective tool in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) utilizing volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Eclipse VMAT planning module includes a tool to control the number of MUs delivered: the MU Objective tool. This tool could be utilized to reduce the total number of MUs in rectal cancer treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 rectal cancer patients were retrospectively studied using VMAT and the MU Objective tool. The baseline plan for each patient was selected as the one with no usage of the MU Objective tool. The number of MUs of this plan was set to be the reference number of MUs (MUref). Five plans were re-optimized for each patient only varying the Max MU parameter. The selected values were 30%, 60%, 90%, 120% and 150% of MUref for each patient. Differences with respect to the baseline plan were evaluated regarding MU number and parameters for PTVs coverage evaluation, PTVs homogeneity and OARs doses assessment. A two-tailed, paired-samples t-test was used to quantify these differences. RESULTS: Average relative differences in MU number obtained was 10% for Max MU values of 30% and 60% of MUref, respectively (p < 0.03). PTVs coverage and homogeneity were not compromised and discrepancies obtained with respect to baseline plans were not significant. Furthermore, maximum OARs doses deviations were also not significant. CONCLUSIONS: A 10% reduction in the MU number could be obtained without an alteration of PTV coverage and OARs doses for rectal cancer.
AIM: To assess the performance of the monitor unit (MU) Objective tool in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) utilizing volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Eclipse VMAT planning module includes a tool to control the number of MUs delivered: the MU Objective tool. This tool could be utilized to reduce the total number of MUs in rectal cancer treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 rectal cancer patients were retrospectively studied using VMAT and the MU Objective tool. The baseline plan for each patient was selected as the one with no usage of the MU Objective tool. The number of MUs of this plan was set to be the reference number of MUs (MUref). Five plans were re-optimized for each patient only varying the Max MU parameter. The selected values were 30%, 60%, 90%, 120% and 150% of MUref for each patient. Differences with respect to the baseline plan were evaluated regarding MU number and parameters for PTVs coverage evaluation, PTVs homogeneity and OARs doses assessment. A two-tailed, paired-samples t-test was used to quantify these differences. RESULTS: Average relative differences in MU number obtained was 10% for Max MU values of 30% and 60% of MUref, respectively (p < 0.03). PTVs coverage and homogeneity were not compromised and discrepancies obtained with respect to baseline plans were not significant. Furthermore, maximum OARs doses deviations were also not significant. CONCLUSIONS: A 10% reduction in the MU number could be obtained without an alteration of PTV coverage and OARs doses for rectal cancer.
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Mohammad Salehpour; David S Followill; Marilyn Stovall; Deborah A Kuban; R Allen White; Isaac I Rosen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Frank J Lagerwaard; Otto W M Meijer; Elles A P van der Hoorn; Wilko F A R Verbakel; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-06-01 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
Authors: Michael Oliver; Isabelle Gagne; Carmen Popescu; Will Ansbacher; Wayne A Beckham Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 2.102