• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.15 no.10
• /
• pp.6187-6192
• /
• 2014

The use of WBRT(whole brain radiation therapy) has increased due to the increase in the incidence of metastatic brain tumors. The development of radiation therapy techniques is expected to improve the quality of life. The VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) is an excellent treatment technique that can distinguish the dose in each volume. Therefore, this study compared conventional WBRT and VMAT for hair loss according to the scalp dose using a head phantom. The CI (Conformity Index), HI (Homogeneity Index) and QOC (Quality of Coverage) were measured brain tissue. A 20 percent and 50 percent dose was measured at the scalp, eyeball, lens, and c-spine. Conventional WBRT is excellent at 10 percent of brain tissue. VMAT is far superior at 1000 percent at the other organs. VMAT at the prescribed dose can be used as radiation therapy of metastatic brain tumors with less hair loss.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.41-47
• /
• 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to dosimetrically compare the technique of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT), which is a traditional prophylactic cranial irradiation method, and the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques used in the last few decades with the dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) technique. Methods: The 3D CRT, VMAT, IMRT, and DCAT plans were prepared with 25 Gy in 10 fractions in a Monaco planning system. The target volume and the critical organ doses were compared. A comparison of the body V₂, V₅, and V₁₀ doses, monitor unit (MU), and beam on-time values was also performed. Results: In planned target volume of the brain (PTV_Brain), the highest D99 dose value (P<0.001) and the most homogeneous (P=0.049) dose distribution according to the heterogeneity index were obtained using the VMAT technique. In contrast, the lowest values were obtained using the 3D CRT technique in the body V₂, V₅, and V₁₀ doses. The MU values were the lowest when DCAT (P=0.001) was used. These values were 0.34% (P=0.256) lower with the 3D CRT technique, 66% (P=0.001) lower with IMRT, and 72% (P=0.001) lower with VMAT. The beam on-time values were the lowest with the 3D CRT planning (P<0.001), 3.8% (P=0.008) lower than DCAT, 65% (P=0.001) lower than VMAT planning, and 76% (P=0.001) lower than IMRT planning. Conclusions: Without sacrificing the homogeneous dose distribution and the critical organ doses in IMRTs, three to four times less treatment time, less low-dose volume, less leakage radiation, and less radiation scattering could be achieved when the DCAT technique is used similar to conventional methods. In short, DCAT, which is applicable in small target volumes, can also be successfully planned in large target volumes, such as the whole-brain.

• 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.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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.70-81
• /
• 2021

Purpose: This study was designed to investigate the dosimetric difference between intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in head and neck cancer (HNC). The study primarily focuses on low-dose spillage evaluation between these two techniques. Methods: This retrospective study involved 45 patients with HNC. The treatment plans were generated using the IMRT and VMAT techniques for all patients. Dosimetric comparisons were performed in terms of target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, and various parameters, including conformity index, uniformity index, homogeneity index, conformation number, low-dose volumes, and normal tissue integral dose (NTID). Results: No significant (P>0.05) difference in planning target volume coverage (D_95%) was observed between IMRT and VMAT plans for supraglottic larynx, hard palate, and tongue cancers. A decrease in dose volumes ranging from 1 Gy to 30 Gy was observed for VMAT plans compared with those for IMRT plans, except for V_1Gy and V_30Gy for supraglottic larynx cancer and V_1Gy for tongue cancer. Moreover, decreases (P<0.05) in NTID were observed for VMAT plans compared with that for IMRT plans in supraglottic larynx (4.50%), hard palate (12.80%), and tongue (7.76%) cancers. In contrast, a slight increase in monitor units for VMAT compared with those for IMRT in supraglottic larynx (0.46%), hard palate (2.54%), and tongue (7.56%) cancers. Conclusions: For advanced-stage HNC, both IMRT and VMAT offer satisfactory clinical plans. VMAT offers a conformal and homogeneous dose distribution with comparable OAR sparing and higher dose falloff outside the target volume than IMRT, which provides an edge to reduce the risk of secondary malignancies for HNC over IMRT.

• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.1-5
• /
• 2016

A dosimetric evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for the lower extremity soft tissue sarcoma For the lower extremity soft tissue sarcoma, volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy were evaluated to compare these three treatment planning technique. The mean doses to the planning target volume and the femur were calculated to evaluate target coverage and the risk of bone fracture during radiation therapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy can reduce the dose to the femur without compromising target coverage and reduce the treatment time compared with intensity modulated radiation therapy.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.583-592
• /
• 2018

In this study, plans to apply 3D conformal radiotherapy, intensity modulated radiotherapy, and volumetric intensity modulated arc radiotherapy to esophageal cancer radiotherapy were compared. In particular, arc therapy was applied to reduce irradiated volume and spread of low-dose during intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric intensity modulated arc radiotherapy by limiting part of irradiated angle, in order to compare target doses and dose for surrounding normal tissues of the two methods and those of 3D conformal radiotherapy. No significant difference in target dose was found among the three methods. The 5 Gy volume(V5) of the lung showed 56.53% of conformal radiotherapy, 52.03% of intensity modulated radiotherapy, and 47.84% of volumetric modulated arc therapy(CRT-IMRT p=0.035, CRT-VMAT p<0.001, IMRT-VMAT p<0.001). The 10 Gy volume(V10) showed a significant difference in conformal radiotherapy 35.12%, intensity modulated radiotherapy 34.04%, and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy 33.28%, showing significant difference in intensity modulated radiotherapy(p=0.018), volumetric modulated arc therapy(p=0.035), no significant difference in dose was found at 20 Gy volume. The mean dose and 20 Gy volume of the heart were not significantly different according to the treatment plan, but the 30 and 40 Gy volumes were 37.16% and 22.46% in the volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy, showing significant differences(p=0.028) in comparison with conformal radiotherapy. It is believed that, by limiting part of the irradiated angle during intensity modulated radiotherapy and volumetric intensity modulated arc radiotherapy, the irradiated volume and, thereby, the 5-10 Gy area and toxicity of the lung can be reduced while maintaining dose distribution of the target dose.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.61-66
• /
• 2017

The aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics of portal dosimetry in comparison with the MapCHECK2 measurments. In this study, a total of 65 treatment plans including both volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were retrospectively selected and analyzed (45 VMAT plans and 20 IMRT plans). A total of 4 types of linac models (VitalBeam, Trilogy, Clinac 21EXS, and Clianc iX) were used for the comparison between portal dosimetry and the MapCHECK2 measurements. The VMAT plans were delivered with two VitalBeam linacs (VitalBeam1 and VitalBeam2) and one Trilogy while the IMRT plans were delivered with one Clinac 21EXS and one Clinacl iX. The global gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and the MapCHECK2 measurements were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm for IMRT while those were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 2%/2 mm for VMAT. Spearman's correlation coefficients (r) were calculated between the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and those of the MapCHECK2 measurements. For VMAT, the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry with the VitalBeam1, VitalBeam2, and Trilogy were $97.3%{\pm}3.5%$, $97.1%{\pm}3.4%$, and $97.5%{\pm}1.9%$, respectively. Those of the MapCHECK2 measurements were $96.8%{\pm}2.5%$, $96.3%{\pm}2.7%$, and $97.4%{\pm}1.3%$, respectively. For IMRT, the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry with Clinac 21EXS and Clinac iX were $99.7%{\pm}0.3%$ and $99.8%{\pm}0.2%$, respectively. Those of the MapCHECK2 measurements were $96.5%{\pm}3.3%$ and $97.7%{\pm}3.2%$, respectively. Except for the result with the Trilogy, no correlations were observed between the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and those of the MapCHECK2 measurements. Therefore, both the MapCHECK2 measurements and portal dosimetry can be used as an alternative to each other for patient-specific QA for both IMRT and VMAT.

• 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.