Agata Jodda1, Tomasz Piotrowski1,2, Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska1,2, Julian Malicki1,2. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866 Poznań, Poland. 2. Department of Electroradiology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyse the impact of different optimization strategies on the compatibility between planned and delivered doses during radiotherapy of cervical cancer. MATERIAL/ METHODS: Four treatment plans differing in optimisation strategies were prepared for ten cervical cancer cases. These were: volumetric modulated arc therapy with (_OPT) and without optimization of the doses in the bone marrow and for two sets of margins applied to the clinical target volume that arose from image guidance based on the bones (IG(B)) and soft tissues (IG(ST)). The plans were subjected to dosimetric verification by using the ArcCHECK system and 3DVH software. The planned dose distributions were compared with the corresponding measured dose distributions in the light of complexity of the plans and its deliverability. RESULTS: The clinically significant impact of the plans complexity on their deliverability is visible only for the gamma passing rates analysis performed in a local mode and directly in the organs. While more general analyses show statistically significant differences, the clinical relevance of them has not been confirmed. The analysis showed that IG(ST)_OPT and IG(B)_OPT significantly differ from IG(ST) and IG(B). The clinical acceptance of IG(ST)_OPT obtained for hard combinations of gamma acceptance criteria (2%/2 mm) confirm its satisfactory deliverability. In turn, for IG(B)_OPT in the case of the rectum, the combination of 2%/2 mm did not meet the criteria of acceptance. CONCLUSION: Despite the complexity of the IG(ST)_OPT, the results of analysis confirm the acceptance of its deliverability when 2%/2 mm gamma acceptance criteria are used during the analysis.
PURPOSE: To analyse the impact of different optimization strategies on the compatibility between planned and delivered doses during radiotherapy of cervical cancer. MATERIAL/ METHODS: Four treatment plans differing in optimisation strategies were prepared for ten cervical cancer cases. These were: volumetric modulated arc therapy with (_OPT) and without optimization of the doses in the bone marrow and for two sets of margins applied to the clinical target volume that arose from image guidance based on the bones (IG(B)) and soft tissues (IG(ST)). The plans were subjected to dosimetric verification by using the ArcCHECK system and 3DVH software. The planned dose distributions were compared with the corresponding measured dose distributions in the light of complexity of the plans and its deliverability. RESULTS: The clinically significant impact of the plans complexity on their deliverability is visible only for the gamma passing rates analysis performed in a local mode and directly in the organs. While more general analyses show statistically significant differences, the clinical relevance of them has not been confirmed. The analysis showed that IG(ST)_OPT and IG(B)_OPT significantly differ from IG(ST) and IG(B). The clinical acceptance of IG(ST)_OPT obtained for hard combinations of gamma acceptance criteria (2%/2 mm) confirm its satisfactory deliverability. In turn, for IG(B)_OPT in the case of the rectum, the combination of 2%/2 mm did not meet the criteria of acceptance. CONCLUSION: Despite the complexity of the IG(ST)_OPT, the results of analysis confirm the acceptance of its deliverability when 2%/2 mm gamma acceptance criteria are used during the analysis.
Authors: Kevin Albuquerque; David Giangreco; Courtney Morrison; Mohammed Siddiqui; Jim Sinacore; Ronald Potkul; John Roeske Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Jadon; C A Pembroke; C L Hanna; N Palaniappan; M Evans; A E Cleves; J Staffurth Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: S B Crowe; T Kairn; J Kenny; R T Knight; B Hill; C M Langton; J V Trapp Journal: Australas Phys Eng Sci Med Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 1.430
Authors: Sara Bresciani; Matteo Poli; Anna Miranti; Angelo Maggio; Amalia Di Dia; Christian Bracco; Pietro Gabriele; Michele Stasi Journal: Phys Med Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Ann H Klopp; Jennifer Moughan; Lorraine Portelance; Brigitte E Miller; Mohammad R Salehpour; Evangeline Hildebrandt; Jenny Nuanjing; David D'Souza; Luis Souhami; William Small; Rakesh Gaur; Anuja Jhingran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Miguel Ángel Souto-Del Bosque; Miguel Ángel Cervantes-Bonilla; Gerardo Del Carmen Palacios-Saucedo Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2018-08-13
Authors: Tomasz Piotrowski; Slav Yartsev; Jaroslaw Krawczyk; Marta Adamczyk; Agata Jodda; Julian Malicki; Piotr Milecki Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-03-09