[KSCI] Korea Science Citation Index Service

Feasibility of Mixed-Energy Partial Arc VMAT Plan with Avoidance Sector for Prostate Cancer

Hwang, Se Ha (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
NA, Kyoung Su (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
Lee, Je Hee (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)

Publication Information

The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy / v.32, no., 2020 , pp. 17-29 More about this Journal

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to investigate the dosimetric impact of mixed energy partial arc technique on prostate cancer VMAT. Materials and Methods: This study involved prostate only patients planned with 70Gy in 30 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Femoral heads, Bladder and Rectum were considered as oragan at risk (OARs). For this study, mixed energy partial arcs (MEPA) were generated with gantry angle set to 180°~230°, 310°~50° for 6MV arc and 130°~50°, 310°~230° for 15MV arc. Each arc set the avoidance sector which is gantry angle 230°~310°, 50°~130° at first arc and 50°~310° at second arc. After that, two plans were summed and were analyzed the dosimetry parameter of each structure such as Maximum dose, Mean dose, D2%, Homogeneity index (HI) and Conformity Index (CI) for PTV and Maximum dose, Mean dose, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, and V20Gy for OARs and Monitor Unit (MU) with 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan. Results: In MEPA, the maximum dose, mean dose and D2% were lower than 6MV 1 ARC plan(p<0.0005). However, the average difference of maximum dose was 0.24%, 0.39%, 0.60% (p<0.450, 0.321, 0.139) higher than 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively and D2% was 0.42%, 0.49%, 0.59% (p<0.073, 0.087, 0.033) higher than compared plans. The average difference of mean dose was 0.09% lower than 10MV 2 ARC plan, but it is 0.27%, 0.12% (p<0.184, 0.521) higher than 6MV 2 ARC, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively. HI was 0.064±0.006 which is the lowest value (p<0.005, 0.357, 0.273, 0.801) among the all plans. For CI, there was no significant differences which were 1.12±0.038 in MEPA, 1.12±0.036, 1.11±0.024, 1.11±0.030, 1.12±0.027 in 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC, respectively. MEPA produced significantly lower rectum dose. Especially, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, V20Gy were 3.40, 16.79, 37.86, 48.09 that were lower than other plans. For bladder dose, V30Gy, V20Gy were lower than other plans. However, the mean dose of both femoral head were 9.69±2.93, 9.88±2.5 which were 2.8Gy~3.28Gy higher than other plans. The mean MU of MEPA were 19.53% lower than 6MV 1 ARC, 5.7% lower than 10MV 2 ARC respectively. Conclusion: This study for prostate radiotherapy demonstrated that a choice of MEPA VMAT has the potential to minimize doses to OARs and improve homogeneity to PTV at the expense of a moderate increase in maximum and mean dose to the femoral heads.

목 적: 전립선 방사선 치료 시 회피 영역을 지정한 혼합 에너지(Mixed Energy Partial Arc, MEPA) VMAT 치료 계획의 선량평가를 통해 임상 적용 가능성을 평가한다. 대상 및 방법: 전립선암 환자 9명을 대상으로 치료 장비 True Beam Stx(Varian Medical System, USA), 치료 계획시스템(Eclipse, Varian Medical System, USA)을 이용하여 치료 계획용적(PTV)에 2.5Gy, 30회로 총 선량 70Gy를 처방하여, 회피 영역을 지정한 혼합 에너지 치료 계획과 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV 그리고 15MV 2 ARC 치료 계획과 비교 분석하였다. 혼합 에너지 치료 계획은 첫 번째 ARC에서 갠트리 각도 180°~230°, 310°~50°은 6MV로 지정하고 230°~310°, 50°~130°는 회피 영역으로 지정하였고 두 번째 ARC에서 갠트리 각도 130°~50°, 310°~230°는 에너지 15MV로 설정 후 50°~310°는 회피 영역으로 지정하였다. 2가지 치료 계획을 각각 최적화 및 선량 계산 후 Sum plan을 생성하였다. 각각의 치료 계획은 선량체적히스토그램(Dose Volume Histogram, DVH)을 이용하여 PTV의 최대선량, 평균선량, D2%, 처방 선량 지수(Conformity Index, CI), 선량 균질 지수(Homogeneity Index, HI) 및 손상위험장기(Organ at Risk, OAR)의 선량을 분석하였다. 또한 monitor unit(MU)와 치료시간(beam on time)을 분석하였다. 결 과: MEPA 치료 계획은 PTV에서 최대선량, 평균선량, D2%값은 75.86±0.47, 71.95±0.51, 73.92±0.45로 6MV 1 ARC 계획보다 낮은 값(전체 p<0.0005)을 보였고 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC 치료 계획과의 비교에서 최대선량은 평균 차이 각각 0.24%, 0.39%, 0.60%(p<0.450, 0.321, 0.139), D2% 값 0.42%, 0.49%, 0.59%(p<0.073, 0.087, 0.033)로 높게 분석되었다. 평균선량은 10MV 2 ARC 치료 계획보다 0.09%(p<0.615) 낮았지만 6MV 2 ARC와 15MV 2 ARC와의 비교에서 각각 0.27%, 0.12%(p<0.184, 0.521) 높게 나타났다. HI는 0.064±0.006로 가장 낮은 값으로 분석(p<0.005) 되어 가장 좋은 균질도를 보이며 CI는 MEPA에서 1.12±0.038, 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC 각각 1.12±0.036, 1.11±0.024, 1.11±0.030, 1.12±0.027로 모든 치료 계획에서 유사한 값으로 분석되었다. 직장 선량은 MEPA가 모든 선량 분석 파라미터에서 낮은 값으로 분석되었다. 특히 V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, V20Gy은 3.40, 16.79, 37.86, 48.09으로 직장에 조사되는 저 선량 영역의 체적을 의미 있는 만큼 줄일 수 있었다. 방광선량은 V30Gy, V20Gy이 다른 치료 계획에 비해 낮은 값을 보였다. 하지만 양측 대퇴골두 비교에서 MEPA는 평균선량 9.69±2.93, 9.88±2.5로 비교된 치료 계획에 비해 2.8Gy~3.28Gy 높은 값을 보였다. 평균 MU값은 MEPA가 6MV 1 ARC보다 19.53%, 10MV 2 ARC에 비해 5.7% 감소하였다. 결 론: 저에너지 X선(6MV)과 고에너지 X선(15MV)을 사용 한 MEPA는 각각 에너지의 장점을 취해 비교한 치료 계획보다 개선된 HI와 동등한 CI값으로 분석되어 만족할 만한 PTV coverage를 보였으며 방광과 직장을 보호하는데 효과적이라고 생각된다.

Keywords

Mixed energy VMAT; Prostate radiation therapy; Radiation treatment planning;

Citations & Related Records

Reference

1	2017 국가 암 등록 통계, 보건복지부, 중앙 암 등록 본부
2	Hiram A. et al.: Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Mo Med. 2018 Mar-Apr; 115(2): 146-150.
3	Otto K, Milette M, Wu J. et al.: Temporal delivery efficiency of a novel single gantry arc optimization technique for treatment of recurrent nasopharynx cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:S703. DOI
4	Palma D, Vollans E, James K, et al.: Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity modulated radiotherapy and three dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:996-1001. DOI
5	Cozzi L, Dinshaw KA, Shrivastava SK. et al.: A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2008;89:180-191. DOI
6	Popescu CC, Olivotto IA, Beckham WA. et al.: Volumetric modulated arc therapy improves dosimetry and reduces treatment time compared to conventional intensity modulated radiotherapy for locoregional radiotherapy of left sided breast cancer and internal mammary nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(1):287-295. DOI
7	Clivio A, Fogliata A, Franzetti-Pellanda A. et al.: Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the anal canal: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92:118-124. DOI
8	Quan EM, Li X, Li Y. et al.: A comprehensive comparison of IMRT and VMAT plan quality for prostate cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:1169-1178. DOI
9	Mattes MD, Tai C, Lee A. et al.: The dosimetric effects of photon energy on the quality of prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4:e39-e44. DOI
10	Kleiner H, Podogorsak MB.: The dosimetric significance of using 10MV photons for volumetric modulated arc therapy for postprostatectomy irradiation of the prostate bed. Radiother Oncol. 2016;50:232-237. DOI
11	Pasler M, Georg D, Wirtz H. et al.: Effect of photonbeam energy on VMAT and IMRT treatment plan quality and dosimetric accuracy for advanced prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. 2011;187:792-798. DOI
12	Park JM, Choi CH, Ha SW, Ye SJ. et al.: The dosimetric effect of mixedenergy IMRT plans for prostate cancer. J App Clin Med Phys. 2011;12:147-157 DOI
13	Dunnett CW, Sobel M. A: Bivariate Generalization of Students T-Distribution, with Tables for Certain Special Cases. Biometrika. 1954; 41:153-169. DOI
14	Martinez AA.: RTOG 0815 Protocol Information. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [Electronic]; 2012
15	Isa M, Rehman J, Afzal M, Chow J. et al.: Dosimetric dependence on the collimator angle in prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Cancer Ther Onc. 2014;2:020419 DOI
16	Bridge PD, Sawilowsky SS.: Increasing physicians' awareness of the impact of statistics on research outcomes: Comparative power of the t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test in small samples applied research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52:229-235. DOI
17	Pokharel S.: Dosimetric impact of mixedenergy volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for highrisk prostate cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2013;1:1
18	Momin S, James L, Rao F. et al.: Evaluation of mixed energy partial arcs for volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer, J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:4: 51-65 DOI
19	Maebayashi T, Ishibashi N, Aizawa T, Sakaguchi M, Sato H, Sato K, et al.: Factors predicting late rectal disorders after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Chin Med J. 2017;130:2441. DOI
20	Gulliford SL, Foo K, Morgan RC. et al.: Dose-volume constraints to reduce rectal side effects from prostate radiotherapy: evidence from MRC RT01 Trial ISRCTN 47772397. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys. 2010;76:747-754. DOI
21	Vargas C, Fryer A, Mahajan C, Indelicato D, Chellini A, et al.: Dose-volume comparison of proton therapy and intensity-mouulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys. 2008;70:744-751. DOI
22	Pascal Hauri, Uwe Schneider: Whole-body dose equivalent including neurtons is similar for 6MVV and 15MV IMRT, VMAT, and 3D conformal radiotherapy, J appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:3: 56-70 DOI
23	Byrne TE.: A review of prostate motion with considerations for thetreatment of prostate cancer. Med Dos. 2005;30:155-161.34. DOI
24	Little DJ, Dong L, Levy LB, et al.: Use of portal images and BAT ultra-sonography to measure setup error and organ motion for prostateIMRT: implications for treatment margins. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys.2003;56:1218-1224.35. DOI
25	S.C. Roy, G. A. Sandison: Shielding for neutron scattered dose to the fetus in patients treated with 18MV x-ray beams, Med Phys., 27, 1800-1803(2000) DOI

KSCI

Feasibility of Mixed-Energy Partial Arc VMAT Plan with Avoidance Sector for Prostate Cancer 전립선암 방사선치료 시 회피 영역을 적용한 혼합 에너지 VMAT 치료 계획의 평가

Feasibility of Mixed-Energy Partial Arc VMAT Plan with Avoidance Sector for Prostate Cancer