• 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.

• 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 $AXB_m$.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.128-138
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Segmental analysis of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is not clinically used for compositional error source evaluation. Instead, dose verification is routinely used for plan-specific quality assurance (QA). While this approach identifies the resultant error, it does not specify which machine parameter was responsible for the error. In this research study, we adopted an approach for the segmental analysis of VMAT as a part of machine QA of linear accelerator (LINAC). Methods: Two portal dose QA plans were generated for VMAT QA: a) for full arc and b) for the arc, which was segmented in 12 subsegments. We investigated the multileaf collimator (MLC) position and dosimetric accuracy in the full and segmented arc delivery schemes. A MATLAB program was used to calculate the MLC position error from the data in the dynalog file. The Gamma passing rate (GPR) and the measured to planned dose difference (DD) in each pixel of the electronic portal imaging device was the measurement for dosimetric accuracy. The eclipse treatment planning system and a MATLAB program were used to calculate the dosimetric accuracy. Results: The maximum root-mean-square error of the MLC positions were <1 mm. The GPR was within the range of 98%-99.7% and was similar in both types of VMAT delivery. In general, the DD was <5 calibration units in both full arcs. A similar DD distribution was found for continuous arc and segmented arcs sums. Exceedingly high DD were not observed in any of the arc segment delivery schemes. The LINAC performance was acceptable regarding the execution of the VMAT QA plan. Conclusions: The segmental analysis proposed in this study is expected to be useful for the prediction of the delivery of the VMAT in relation to the gantry angle. We thus recommend the use of segmental analysis of VMAT as part of the regular QA.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.284-289
• /
• 2013

A study was performed comparing dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc and intensity modulated radiatio therapy on patients with bilateral breast cancer. For 5 patients, 3 plans were made for each patient; IMRT beams 8 and 12 of the beam intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy plan. The average PTVs volumes and $D_{98}$ for 12-IMRT were $51.04{\pm}0.57$ Gy (right), $50.80{\pm}1.07$ Gy (left), $42.94{\pm}16.16$ Gy (right), $42.56{\pm}2.09$ Gy (left). HI ($D_5{\sim}D_{95}$) and $CI_{90,95}$, even 12-IMRT has shown excellent results. In OAR, 3 plans showed excellent results. But the lowest dose of 12-IMRT. 12-IMRT achieved similar PTV coverage and sparing of organs at risk than 8-IMRT and VMAT.

• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.21-28
• /
• 2014

Purpose : For non-small cell lung cancer, if the treatment volume is large or the total lung volume is small, and the tumor is located in midline of patient's body, total lung dose tends to increase due to tolerance dose of spinal cord. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the total lung dose of three dimensional conformal radiotherapy(3D CRT), intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) using restricted angle for non-small cell lung cancer patients. Materials and Methods : The treatment plans for four patients, being treated on TrueBeam STx($Varian^{TM}$, USA) with 10 MV and prescribed dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions, 3D CRT, restricted angle IMRT and VAMT radiotherapy plans were established. Planning target volume(PTV), dose to total lung and spinal cord were evaluated using the dose volume histogram(DVH). Conformity index(CI), homogeneity index(HI), Paddick's index(PCI) for the PTV, $V_{30}$, $V_{20}$, $V_{10}$, $V_5$, mean dose for total lung and maximum dose for spinal cord was assessed. Results : Average value of CI, HI and PCI for PTV was $0.944{\pm}0.009$, $1.106{\pm}0.027$, $1.084{\pm}0.016$ respectively. $V_{20}$ values from 3D CRT, IMRT and VMAT plans were 30.7%, 20.2% and 21.2% for the first patient, 33.0%, 29.2% and 31.5% for second patient, 51.3%, 34.3% and 36.9% for third patient, finally 56.9%, 33.7% and 40.0% for the last patient. It was noticed that the $V_{20}$ was lowest in the IMRT plan using restricted angle. Maximum dose for spinal cord was evaluated to lower than the tolerance dose. Conclusion : For non-small cell lung cancer, IMRT with restricted angle or VMAT could minimize the lung dose and lower the dose to spinal cord below the tolerance level. Considering PTV coverage and tolerance dose to spinal cord, it was possible to obtain IMRT plan with smaller angle and this could result in lower dose to lung when compared to VMAT.

• 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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.107-115
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical quality assurance results of portal dosimetry using an electronic portal imaging device, a method that is extensively used for patient-specific quality assurance, and the newly released Mobius3D for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods: This retrospective study includes data from 122 patients who underwent IMRT and VMAT on the Novalis Tx and VitalBeam linear accelerators between April and June 2020. We used a paired t-test to compare portal dosimetry using an electronic portal imaging device and the average gamma passing rates of MobiusFX using log files regenerated after patient treatment. Results: The average gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) and MobiusFX (5%/3 mm) were 99.43%±1.02% and 99.32%±1.87% in VitalBeam and 97.53%±3.34% and 96.45%±13.94% in Novalis Tx, respectively. Comparison of the gamma passing rate results of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) and MobiusFX (5%/3 mm as per the manufacturer's manual) does not show any statistically significant difference. Conclusions: Log file-based patient-specific quality assurance, including independent dose calculation, can be appropriately used in clinical practice as a second-check dosimetry, and it is considered comparable with primary quality assurance such as portal dosimetry.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.138-147
• /
• 2020

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric variations in patients of head and neck cancer treated with definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy using optimized non-coplanar (ncVMAT) beams with coplanar (cVMAT) beams using volumetric arc therapy. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two patients of head and neck cancer that had received radiotherapy using VMAT in our department were retrospectively analyzed. Each of the patients was planned using coplanar and non-coplanar orientations using an optimized couch angle and fluences. We analyzed the Conformity Index (C_IRTOG), Dose Homogeneity Index (DHI), Heterogeneity Index (HI_RTOG), low dose volume, target and organs-at-risk coverage in both the plans without changing planning optimization parameters. Results: The prescription dose ranged from 60 Gy to 70 Gy. Using ncVMAT, C_IRTOG, DHI and HI_RTOG, and tumor coverage (ID_95%) had improved, low dose spillage volume in the body V_5Gy was increased and V_10Gy was reduced. Integral dose and intensity-modulated radiation therapy factor had increased in ncVMAT. In the case of non-coplanar beam arrangements, maximum dose (D_max) of right and left humeral head were reduced significantly whereas apex of the right and left lung mean dose were increased. Conclusion: The use of ncVMAT produced better target coverage and sparing of the shoulder and soft tissue of the neck as well as the critical organ compared with the cVMAT in patients of head and neck malignancy.