• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.120-127
• /
• 2019

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of Mobius3D by comparison with an aSi-based electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and Octavius 4D, which are conventionally used for patient-specific prescription dose verification. Methods: The study was conducted using nine patients who were treated by volumetric modulated arc therapy. To evaluate the feasibility of Mobius3D for prescription dose verification, we compared the QA results of Mobius3D to an aSi-based EPID and the Octavius 4D dose verification methods. The first was the comparison of the Mobius3D verification phantom dose, and the second was to gamma index analysis. Results: The percentage differences between the calculated point dose and measurements from a PTW31010 ion chamber were 1.6%±1.3%, 2.0%±0.8%, and 1.2%±1.2%, using collapsed cone convolution, an analytical anisotropic algorithm, and the AcurosXB algorithm respectively. The average difference was found to be 1.6%±0.3%. Additionally, in the case of using the PTW31014 ion chamber, the corresponding results were 2.0%±1.4%, 2.4%±2.1%, and 1.6%±2.5%, showing an average agreement within 2.0%±0.3%. Considering all the criteria, the Mobius3D result showed that the percentage dose difference from the EPID was within 0.46%±0.34% on average, and the percentage dose difference from Octavius 4D was within 3.14%±2.85% on average. Conclusions: We conclude that Mobius3D can be used interchangeably with phantom-based dosimetry systems, which are commonly used as patient-specific prescription dose verification tools, especially under the conditions of 3%/3 mm and 95% pass rate.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.30 no.1_2
• /
• pp.9-16
• /
• 2018

Purpose : Brain Stereotactic Radiosurgery can treat non-invasive diseases with high rates of complications due to surgical operations. However, brain stereotactic radiosurgery may be accompanied by radiation induced side effects such as fractionation radiation therapy because it uses radiation. The effects of Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy(C-VMAT) and Non-Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy(NC-VMAT) on surrounding normal tissues were analyzed in order to reduce the side effects caused fractionation radiation therapy such as head and neck. But, brain stereotactic radiosurgery these contents were not analyzed. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of NC-VMAT by comparing and analyzing C-VMAT and NC-VMAT in patients who underwent brain stereotactic radiosurgery. Methods and materials : With C-VMAT and NC-VMAT, 13 treatment plans for brain stereotactic radiosurgery were established. The Planning Target Volume ranged from a minimum of 0.78 cc to a maximum of 12.26 cc, Prescription doses were prescribed between 15 and 24 Gy. Treatment machine was TrueBeam STx (Varian Medical Systems, USA). The energy used in the treatment plan was 6 MV Flattening Filter Free (6FFF) X-ray. The C-VMAT treatment plan used a half 2 arc or full 2 arc treatment plan, and the NC-VMAT treatment plan used 3 to 7 Arc 40 to 190 degrees. The angle of the couch was planned to be 3-7 angles. Results : The mean value of the maximum dose was $105.1{\pm}1.37%$ in C-VMAT and $105.8{\pm}1.71%$ in NC-VMAT. Conformity index of C-VMAT was $1.08{\pm}0.08$ and homogeneity index was $1.03{\pm}0.01$. Conformity index of NC-VMAT was $1.17{\pm}0.1$ and homogeneity index was $1.04{\pm}0.01$. $V_2$, $V_8$, $V_{12}$, $V_{18}$, $V_{24}$ of the brain were $176{\pm}149.36cc$, $31.50{\pm}25.03cc$, $16.53{\pm}12.63cc$, $8.60{\pm}6.87cc$ and $4.03{\pm}3.43cc$ in the C-VMAT and $135.55{\pm}115.93cc$, $24.34{\pm}17.68cc$, $14.74{\pm}10.97cc$, $8.55{\pm}6.79cc$, $4.23{\pm}3.48cc$. Conclusions : The maximum dose, conformity index, and homogeneity index showed no significant difference between C-VMAT and NC-VMAT. $V_2$ to $V_{18}$ of the brain showed a difference of at least 0.5 % to 48 %. $V_{19}$ to $V_{24}$ of the brain showed a difference of at least 0.4 % to 4.8 %. When we compare the mean value of $V_{12}$ that Radione-crosis begins to generate, NC-VMAT has about 12.2 % less amount than C-VMAT. These results suggest that if NC-VMAT is used, the volume of $V_2$ to $V_{18}$ can be reduced, which can reduce Radionecrosis.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.18-25
• /
• 2016

Purpose: Radiotherapy of the neck is known to cause carotid artery stenosis. We compared the carotid artery dose received between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans in patients with early glottic cancer. Materials and Methods: Twenty-one early glottic cancer patients who previously underwent definitive radiotherapy were selected for this study. For each patient, double arc VMAT, 8-field IMRT, 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), and lateral parallel-opposed photon field radiotherapy (LPRT) plans were created. The 3DCRT plan was generated using lateral parallel-opposed photon fields plus an anterior photon field. VMAT and IMRT treatment plan optimization was performed under standardized conditions to obtain adequate target volume coverage and spare the carotid artery. Dose-volume specifications for the VMAT, IMRT, 3DCRT, and LPRT plans were calculated with radiotherapy planning system. Monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were measured to evaluate treatment efficiency. Results: Target volume coverage and homogeneity results were comparable between VMAT and IMRT; however, VMAT was superior to IMRT for carotid artery dose sparing. The mean dose to the carotid arteries in double arc VMAT was reduced by 6.8% compared to fixed-field IMRT (p < 0.001). The MUs for VMAT and IMRT were not significantly different (p = 0.089). VMAT allowed an approximately two-fold reduction in treatment delivery time in comparison to IMRT (3 to 5 minutes vs. 5 to 10 minutes). Conclusion: VMAT resulted in a lower carotid artery dose compared to conventional fixed-field IMRT, and maintained good target coverage in patients with early glottic cancer.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.57-68
• /
• 2017

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) with fixed-field intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) using non-coplanar beam when the shape of target is irregular and the location is adjacent to organ at risk(OAR). Materials and Methods: The subjects of this study were a total of 6 patients who had radiation therapy for whole scalp(2 patients), partial scalp(2 patients), and whole ventricle(2 patients) by True Beam STX(Varian Medical Systems, USA). VMAT plans consisted of coplanar or non-coplanar arcs which can minimize the volume of OAR included in beamlets. All fixed-field IMRT plans consisted of non-coplanar beams using more than 2 angles of Couch. Results: The VMAT and IMRT plans were compared with regard to the maximum dose of both lens, both optic nerves, optic chiasm, and brain stem and the mean dose of both eyeballs and hippocampus. VMAT plans showed higher dose than ncIMRT plans at more than 6 of all OARs in every patient, and the ratio was from 1.1 times to 8.2 times. In case of total scalp and partial scalp, the volume of brain which received more than 20 Gy in the VMAT plans was 2 times larger than the volume in the ncIMRT plans. In case of whole ventricle, there was no significant difference. Target coverage was satisfied in both plans($PTV_{100%}=95%$). The maximum dose in target volume and required monitor unit(MU) of ncIMRT were higher than them of VMAT plans. Conclusion: Even though ncIMRT is less efficient than VMAT with regard to required MU and treatment time, the dose to OARs is much lower than VMAT and PTV Coverage is similar with VMAT. If the shape of target is irregular and location is adjacent to OAR, comparison VMAT plan with ncIMRT plan deserves to be considered.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.341-347
• /
• 2018

Surgical excision along with use of postoperative radiotherapy forms an integral management of sinonasal teratocarcinosarcoma (SNTCS). However, given the rarity of the tumor, no standardised guidelines, dose, technique and target delineation exist especially in the era of modern radiation delivery techniques. This is a case of 55-year-old male diagnosed as SNTCS treated with radical ethmoidectomy followed by volumetric modulated radiotherapy, showing good local control and acceptable toxicity profile.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.179-188
• /
• 2020

Purpose: We compared noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (ncVMAT) plans to coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) plans by evaluating the dosimetric quality of each for esophageal cancer. Methods: Twenty patients treated for esophageal cancer with the cVMAT technique were retrospectively selected. The cVMAT plans consisted of three coplanar full arc beams. The ncVMAT plans consisted of two coplanar full arc beams and one noncoplanar partial arc beam ranging from 45° to 315° with a couch rotation angle of 315°±5°. For dosimetric evaluation, the dose-volumetric (DV) parameters of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were calculated for all VMAT plans. Results: No clinically noticeable differences between the cVMAT and ncVMAT plans were observed in the DV parameters of the PTV. For the lungs, the V_{13 Gy} and mean dose for ncVMAT plans were smaller than those for cVMAT plans, showing statistically significant differences. For the heart, the values of the maximum dose for cVMAT and ncVMAT plans were 53.8±2.9 and 50.9±3.3 Gy, respectively (P=0.004). For the spinal cord, the values of the maximum dose for cVMAT and ncVMAT plans were 37.1±5.1 and 34.7±5.7 Gy, respectively (P<0.001). Conclusions: The use of ncVMAT plans provides better PTV coverage and sparing of OARs compared to that of cVMAT plans for long, tube-like esophageal cancer. For esophageal cancer, the ncVMAT plans showed a more favorable plan quality than the cVMAT plans.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.180-188
• /
• 2016

Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm (AXB, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) has been released recently and provided the advantages of speed and accuracy for dose calculation. For clinical use, it is important to investigate the dosimetric performance of AXB compared to the calculation algorithm of the previous version, Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Ten volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for each of the following cases were included: head and neck (H&N), prostate, spine, and lung. The spine and lung cases were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) technique. For all cases, the dose distributions were calculated using AAA and two dose reporting modes in AXB (dose-to-water, $AXB_w$, and dose-to-medium, $AXB_m$) with same plan parameters. For dosimetric evaluation, the dose-volumetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and interested normal organs. The differences between AAA and AXB were statistically calculated with paired t-test. As a general trend, $AXB_w$ and $AXB_m$ showed dose underestimation as compared with AAA, which did not exceed within -3.5% and -4.5%, respectively. The maximum dose of PTV calculated by $AXB_w$ and $AXB_m$ was tended to be overestimated with the relative dose difference ranged from 1.6% to 4.6% for all cases. The absolute mean values of the relative dose differences were $1.1{\pm}1.2%$ and $2.0{\pm}1.2%$ when comparing between AAA and $AXB_w$, and AAA and $AXB_m$, respectively. For almost dose-volumetric parameters of PTV, the relative dose differences are statistically significant while there are no statistical significance for normal tissues. Both $AXB_w$ and $AXB_m$ was tended to underestimate dose for PTV and normal tissues compared to AAA. For analyzing two dose reporting modes in AXB, the dose distribution calculated by $AXB_w$ was similar to those of AAA when comparing the dose distributions between AAA and $AXB_m$.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.249-256
• /
• 2024

The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of treatment plans using full Arc and Partial Arc Coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and Non-Coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy to minimize radiation treatment side effects, such as pneumonia, and protect normal organs in esophageal cancer radiotherapy. 30 patients who underwent Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer were included. Compared planning target volume, lung, heart, spinal cord and total monitor units among three treatment plans: fVMAT(2 Full Arc), pVMAT(4 Partial Arc), and ncVMAT(2 Partial Arc + 2 Non-Coplanar Arc). All plans met the PTV criteria, showing uniform distribution. The average dose to the heart was 5.8 Gy for fVMAT, 6.97 Gy for pVMAT, and 7.6 Gy for ncVMAT, with the lowest value in fVMAT, which was statistically significant. However, the average lung dose was 9.01 Gy for fVMAT, 7.71 Gy for pVMAT, and 7.12 Gy for ncVMAT, with V_5Gy(%) values of 52.22%, 38.61%, 36.35% and V_10Gy(%) values of 37.8%, 27.33%, 24.15% respectively. ncVMAT showed the lowest values, while fVMAT had the highest, with statistical significance. In conclusion, ncVMAT effectively reduces lung radiation exposure in esophageal cancer radiotherapy, potentially reducing the incidence of side effects such as pneumonia. However, considering factors like setup accuracy and treatment time, applying an appropriate treatment plan may lead to better outcomes.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.157-163
• /
• 2018

Plans converted using dose-volume-histogram-based plan conversion (DPC) were evaluated by comparing them to the original plans. Changes in the dose volumetric (DV) parameters of five volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for head and neck (HN) cancer and five VMAT plans for prostate cancer were analyzed. For the HN plans, the homogeneity indices (HIs) of the three planning target volumes (PTV) increased by 0.03, 0.02, and 0.03, respectively, after DPC. The maximum doses to the PTVs increased by 1.20, 1.87, and 0.92 Gy, respectively, after DPC. The maximum doses to the optic chiasm, optic nerves, spinal cord, brain stem, lenses, and parotid glands increased after DPC by approximately 4.39, 3.62, 7.55, 7.96, 1.77, and 6.40 Gy, respectively. For the prostate plans after DPC, the HIs for the primary and boost PTVs increased by 0.05 and 0.03, respectively, and the maximum doses to each PTV increased by 1.84 and 0.19 Gy, respectively. After DPC, the mean doses to the rectum and femoral heads increased by approximately 6.19 and 2.79 Gy, respectively, and those to the bladder decreased by 0.20 Gy when summing the primary and boost plans. Because clinically unacceptable changes were sometimes observed after DPC, plans converted by DPC should be carefully reviewed before actual patient treatment.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.47 no.4
• /
• pp.271-278
• /
• 2024

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of changes in beam arrangement and arc counts on dosimetric factors in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) inverse radiation therapy planning for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT) by using the Elekta Monaco radiation therapy planning system (RTPs). For coplanar VMAT, both the arc per beam (APB) method and the beam determined arc(BDA) method, which is determined by the number of beams, were applied. For non-coplanar VMAT, the BDA method was utilized, and a total of 9 treatment plans were established by varying the arc counts. All radiation therapy plans met the radiation oncology group (RTOG) 0933 protocol standards, and 14 dosimetric factors were compared and analyzed. The results showed that the BDA-NC VMAT method demonstrated superior performance in terms of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and protection of normal organs, while APB-VMAT was advantageous in terms of hippocampal protection, monitor unit and delivery time. This study is expected to contribute to the efficient establishment of HA-WBRT plans considering the changes in beam arrangement and rotation arc numbers in Monaco RTPs.