Marta Adamczyk1, Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska1,2, Anna Rucińska3, Tomasz Piotrowski1,2. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznań, Poland. 2. Department of Electroradiology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland. 3. 1st Radiotherapy Ward, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznań, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Restricted studies comparing different dose rate parameters are available while ITV-based VMAT lung SBRT planning leads to perform the analysis of the most suitable parameters of the external beams used. The special emphasis was placed on the impact of dose rate on dose distribution variations in target volumes due to interplay effects. METHODS: Four VMAT plans were calculated for 15 lung tumours using 6 MV photon beam quality (flattening filter FF vs. flattening filter free FFF beams) and maximum dose rate of 600 MU/min, 1000 MU/min and 1400 MU/min. Three kinds of motion simulations were performed finally giving 180 plans with perturbed dose distributions. RESULTS: 6FFF-1400 MUs/min plans were characterized by the shortest beam on time (1.8 ± 0.2 min). Analysing the performed motion simulation results, the mean dose (Dmean) is not a sensitive parameter to related interplay effects. Looking for local maximum and local minimum doses, some discrepancies were found, but their significance was presented for individual patients, not for the whole cohort. The same was observed for other verified dose metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, the evaluation of VMAT robustness between FF and FFF concepts against interplay effect showed a negligible effect of simulated motion influence on tumour coverage among different photon beam quality parameters. Due to the lack of FFF beams, smaller radiotherapy centres are able to perform ITV-based VMAT lung SBRT treatment in a safe way. Radiotherapy department having FFF beams could perform safe, fast and efficient ITV-based VMAT lung SBRT without a concern about significance of interplay effects.
PURPOSE: Restricted studies comparing different dose rate parameters are available while ITV-based VMAT lung SBRT planning leads to perform the analysis of the most suitable parameters of the external beams used. The special emphasis was placed on the impact of dose rate on dose distribution variations in target volumes due to interplay effects. METHODS: Four VMAT plans were calculated for 15 lung tumours using 6 MV photon beam quality (flattening filter FF vs. flattening filter free FFF beams) and maximum dose rate of 600 MU/min, 1000 MU/min and 1400 MU/min. Three kinds of motion simulations were performed finally giving 180 plans with perturbed dose distributions. RESULTS: 6FFF-1400 MUs/min plans were characterized by the shortest beam on time (1.8 ± 0.2 min). Analysing the performed motion simulation results, the mean dose (Dmean) is not a sensitive parameter to related interplay effects. Looking for local maximum and local minimum doses, some discrepancies were found, but their significance was presented for individual patients, not for the whole cohort. The same was observed for other verified dose metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, the evaluation of VMAT robustness between FF and FFF concepts against interplay effect showed a negligible effect of simulated motion influence on tumour coverage among different photon beam quality parameters. Due to the lack of FFF beams, smaller radiotherapy centres are able to perform ITV-based VMAT lung SBRT treatment in a safe way. Radiotherapy department having FFF beams could perform safe, fast and efficient ITV-based VMAT lung SBRT without a concern about significance of interplay effects.
Authors: Nicolas Peguret; Max Dahele; Johan P Cuijpers; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Vincent Caillet; Paul J Keall; Emma Colvill; Nicholas Hardcastle; Ricky O'Brien; Kathryn Szymura; Jeremy T Booth Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Waqar Haque; Vivek Verma; Praveen Polamraju; Andrew Farach; E Brian Butler; Bin S Teh Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mischa S Hoogeman; Joost J Nuyttens; Peter C Levendag; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel Zucca Aparicio; Ovidio Hernando Requejo; Miguel Ángel de la Casa de Julián; Carmen Rubio Rodríguez; Pedro Fernández Letón Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2019-01-22