Journal of radiological science and technology (대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학)

Korean Society of Radiological Science (대한방사선과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of MLC Leaf Motion Constraints on Plan Quality and Delivery Accuracy in VMAT

체적조절호형방사선치료 시 갠트리 회전과 다엽콜리메이터의 이동 속도에 따른 선량분포 평가

  • Kim, Yon-Lae (Department of Radiologic Technology, Choonhae College of Health Science) ;
  • Chung, Jin-Beom (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National Univ. Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Jeong-woo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Konkuk University Hospital) ;
  • Shin, Young-Joo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital) ;
  • Kang, Dong-Jin (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital) ;
  • Jung, Jae-Yong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital)
  • 김연래 (춘해보건대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 정진범 (분당서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 이정우 (건국대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 신영주 (상계백병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 강동진 (상계백병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 정재용 (상계백병원 방사선종양학과)
  • Received : 2019.05.15
  • Accepted : 2019.06.16
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dose distribution by gantry rotation and MLC moving speed on treatment planning system(TPS) and linear accelerator. The dose analyzer phantom(Delta 4) was scanned by CT simulator for treatment planning. The planning target volumes(PTVs) of prostate and pancreas was prescribed 6,500 cGy, 5,000 cGy on VMAT(Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) by TPS while MLC speed changed. The analyzer phantom was irradiated linear accelerator using by planned parameters. Dose distribution of PTVs were evaluated by the homogeneity index, conformity index, dose volume histogram of organ at risk(rectum, bladder, spinal cord, kidney). And irradiated dose analysis were evaluated dose distribution and conformity by gamma index. The PTV dose of pancreas was 4,993 cGy during 0.1 cm/deg leaf and gantry that was the most closest prescribed dose(5,000 cGy). The dose of spinal cord, left kidney, and right kidney were accessed the lowest during 0.1 cm/deg, 1.5 cm/deg, 0.3 cm/deg. The PTV dose of prostate was 6,466 cGy during 0.1 cm/deg leaf and gantry that was the most closest prescribed dose(6,500 cGy). The dose of bladder and rectum were accessed the lowest during 0.3 cm/deg, 2.0 cm/deg. For gamma index, pancreas and prostate were analyzed the lowest error 100% at 0.8, 1.0 cm/deg and 99.6% at 0.3, 0.5 cm/deg. We should used the optimal leaf speed according to the gantry rotation if the treatment cases are performed VMAT.

Keywords

References

  1. Ko HJ, Kim YJ, Jang SJ. The comparison of dose distribution on radiation therapy between IMRTand VMAT in modified radical mastectomy patients. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2014:14(8):225-32. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2014.14.08.225
  2. Kang DJ, Jung JY, Kim JH, Park S, Lee KS, Sohn SC, Shin YJ, Kim YL. The patient specific QA of IMRT and VMAT through the AAPM task group report 119. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2012:35(3):255-63.
  3. Rao M, Yang W, Chen F, et al. Comparison of Elekta VMAT with helical tomotherapy and fixed field IMRT: Plan quality delivery efficiency and accuracy. Med Phy. 2010:37:1350-9. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3326965
  4. Jung JY, Shin YJ, Sohn SC, Kim YL, Min JH, Suh TS. Dosimetry effect on selectable optimization parameters of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Journal of Korean Medical Physics. 2012:23(1):15-25.
  5. Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013:368:987-98. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209825
  6. Kim CY, Lee JH, Kwak YK, Ha MY. Evaluation of planning dose accuracy in case of radiation treatment on inhomogeneous organ structure. The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy. 2013:25(2):137-43.
  7. Park JM, Wu HG, Kim JH, Carlson JNK, Kim K. The effect of MLC speed and acceleration on the plan delivery accuracy of VMAT. The British Instituet of Radiology. 2015:88(1049):698-703.
  8. Oh SA, Kang MK, Kim SK, Yea JW. Comparison of IMRT and VMAT techniques in spine stereotactic radiosurgery with international spine radiosurgery consortium consensus guideline. Prog Med Phys. 2013;24:145-53. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2013.24.3.145
  9. Masahide S, Naoki S, Yuki S, Kengo K, Takafumi K, Kan M, et al. Comparison of MLC error sensitivity of various commercial devices for VMAT pre-treatment quality assurance. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018:19(3):87-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12288
  10. Oliver M, Gagne I, Bush K, Zavgorodni S, Ansbacher W, Beckham W. Clinical significance of multileaf collimator positional errors for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2010;97:554-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2010.06.013
  11. Todsaporn F, Peter BG, Benjamin, JZ, Michael PB, Joerg L. A novel and independent method for time-rosolved gantry angle quality assurance for VMAT. Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017:18(5):134-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12129
  12. Quan EM, Li X, Li Y, et al. A comparison of IMRT and VMAT plan quality for prostate cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012:83-1169-1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.015
  13. Wolff D, Stieler F, Welzel G, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. serial tomotherapy step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2009:93:226-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.011
  14. Manikandan A, Sarkar B, Holla R, Vivek TR, Sujatha N. Quality assurance of dynamic parameters in volumetric modulated arc therapy. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:1002-7. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/19152959
  15. Tyagi N, Yang K, Gersten D, Yan D. A real time dose monitoring and dose reconstruction tool for patient specific VMAT QA and delivery. Med Phys. 2012;39:7194-204. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4764482
  16. Kim JI, Park SY, Kim HJ, Kim JH, Ye SJ, Park JM. The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:167. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-167