PURPOSE: The aim is a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with the segment shape optimization and variable dose rate (DCA_SSO_VDR) versus VMAT for liver SBRT and interaction of various treatment plan quality indices with PTV and degree of modulation (DoM) for both techniques. MATERIAL: Twenty-five patients of liver SBRT treated using the VMAT technique were selected. DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans were also generated for all patients in Monaco TPS using the same objective constraint template and treatment planning parameters as used for the VMAT technique. For comparison purpose, organs at risk (OARs) doses and treatment plans quality indices, such as maximum dose of PTV (Dmax%), mean dose of PTV (Dmean%), maximum dose at 2 cm in any direction from the PTV (D2cm%), total monitor units (MU's), gradient index R50%, degree of modulation (DoM), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and healthy tissue mean dose (HTMD), were compared. RESULTS: Significant dosimetric differences were observed in several OARs doses and lowered in VMAT plans. The D2cm%, R50%, CI, HI and HTMD are dosimetrically inferior in DCA_SSO_VDR plans. The higher DoM results in poor dose gradient and better dose gradient for DCA_SSO_VDR and VMAT treatment plans, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For liver SBRT, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans are neither dosimetrically superior nor better alternative to the VMAT delivery technique. A reduction of 69.75% MU was observed in DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans. For the large size of PTV and high DoM, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans result in poorer quality.
PURPOSE: The aim is a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with the segment shape optimization and variable dose rate (DCA_SSO_VDR) versus VMAT for liver SBRT and interaction of various treatment plan quality indices with PTV and degree of modulation (DoM) for both techniques. MATERIAL: Twenty-five patients of liver SBRT treated using the VMAT technique were selected. DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans were also generated for all patients in Monaco TPS using the same objective constraint template and treatment planning parameters as used for the VMAT technique. For comparison purpose, organs at risk (OARs) doses and treatment plans quality indices, such as maximum dose of PTV (Dmax%), mean dose of PTV (Dmean%), maximum dose at 2 cm in any direction from the PTV (D2cm%), total monitor units (MU's), gradient index R50%, degree of modulation (DoM), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and healthy tissue mean dose (HTMD), were compared. RESULTS: Significant dosimetric differences were observed in several OARs doses and lowered in VMAT plans. The D2cm%, R50%, CI, HI and HTMD are dosimetrically inferior in DCA_SSO_VDR plans. The higher DoM results in poor dose gradient and better dose gradient for DCA_SSO_VDR and VMAT treatment plans, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For liver SBRT, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans are neither dosimetrically superior nor better alternative to the VMAT delivery technique. A reduction of 69.75% MU was observed in DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans. For the large size of PTV and high DoM, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans result in poorer quality.
Authors: Stanley H Benedict; Kamil M Yenice; David Followill; James M Galvin; William Hinson; Brian Kavanagh; Paul Keall; Michael Lovelock; Sanford Meeks; Lech Papiez; Thomas Purdie; Ramaswamy Sadagopan; Michael C Schell; Bill Salter; David J Schlesinger; Almon S Shiu; Timothy Solberg; Danny Y Song; Volker Stieber; Robert Timmerman; Wolfgang A Tomé; Dirk Verellen; Lu Wang; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Wilko F A R Verbakel; Suresh Senan; Johan P Cuijpers; Ben J Slotman; Frank J Lagerwaard Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 6.280