• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of Coaxial MLC VMAT plan (Using $273^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$ collimator angle) That the leaf motion direction aligned with axis of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.) compare to Universal MLC VMAT plan (using $30^{\circ}$ and $330^{\circ}$ collimator angle) for spine SBRT. Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of spine SBRT that treated with VMAT planned by Coaxial MLC and Varian TBX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse (Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3 (Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA (Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28) with coplanar $360^{\circ}$ arcs and 10MV FFF (Flattening filter free). Each arc has $273^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$ collimator angle, respectively. The Universal MLC VMAT plans are based on existing treatment plans. Those plans have the same parameters of existing treatment plans but collimator angle. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively. The calculation grid is 0.2 cm and all plans were normalized to the target V100%=90%. The indexes of evaluation are V10Gy, D0.03cc, Dmean of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.), H.I (Homogeneity index) of the target and total MU. All Coaxial VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with Mapcheck2 (Sun Nuclear Co., USA), Mapphan (Sun Nuclear Co., USA) and SNC patient (Sun Nuclear Co., USA Ver 6.1.2.18513). Results : The difference between the coaxial and the universal VMAT plans are follow. The coaxial VMAT plan is better in the V10Gy of OAR, Up to 4.1%, at least 0.4%, the average difference was 1.9% and In the D0.03cc of OAR, Up to 83.6 cGy, at least 2.2 cGy, the average difference was 33.3 cGy. In Dmean, Up to 34.8 cGy, at least -13.0 cGy, the average difference was 9.6 cGy that say the coaxial VMAT plans are better except few cases. H.I difference Up to 0.04, at least 0.01, the average difference was 0.02 and the difference of average total MU is 74.1 MU. The coaxial MLC VMAT plan is average 74.1 MU lesser then another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the coaxial MLC VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 1mm / 2%. Conclusion : Coaxial MLC VMAT treatment plan appeared to be favorable in most cases than the Universal MLC VMAT treatment planning. It is efficient in lowering the dose of the OAR V10Gy especially. As a result, the Coaxial MLC VMAT plan could be better than the Universal MLC VMAT plan in same MU.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.145-153
• /
• 2013

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to treat spinal metastases. To achieve the highest steep dose gradients and conformal dose distributions of target tumors, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques are essential to spine radiosurgery. The purpose of the study was to qualitatively compare IMRT and VMAT techniques with International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC) contoured consensus guidelines for target volume definition. Planning target volume (PTV) was categorized as TB, $T_{BPT}$ and $T_{ST}$ depending on sectors involved; $T_B$ (vertebral body only), $T_{BPT}$ (vertebral body+pedicle+transverse process), and $T_{ST}$ (spinous process+transverse process). Three patients treated for spinal tumor in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar region were selected. Eacg tumor was contoured by the definition from the ISRC guideline. Maximum spinal cord dose were 12.46 Gy, 12.17 Gy and 11.36 Gy for $T_B$, $T_{BPT}$ and $T_{ST}$ sites, and 11.81 Gy, 12.19 Gy and 11.99 Gy for the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 techniques, respectively. Average fall-off dose distance from 90% to 50% isodose line for $T_B$, $T_{BPT}$, and $T_{ST}$ sites were 3.5 mm, 3.3 mm and 3.9 mm and 3.7 mm, 3.7 mm and 3.3 mm for the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 techniques, respectively. For the most complicated target $T_{BPT}$ sites in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions, the conformity index of the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 is 0.621, 0.761 and 0.817 and 0.755, 0.796 and 0.824 for rDHI. Both IMRT and VMAT techniques delivered high conformal dose distributions in spine stereotactic radiosurgery. However, if the target volume includes the vertebral body, pedicle, and transverse process, IMRT planning resulted in insufficient conformity index, compared to VMAT planning. Nevertheless, IMRT technique was more effective in reducing the maximum spinal cord dose compared to RA1 and RA2 techniques at most sites.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.94-103
• /
• 2019

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical feasibility of knowledge-based planning (KBP) for volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) in spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods: Forty-eight VMAT plans for spine SBRT was studied. Two planning target volumes (PTVs) were defined for simultaneous integrated boost: PTV for boost (PTV-B: 27 Gy/3fractions) and PTV elective (PTV-E: 24 Gy/3fractions). The expert VMAT plans were manually generated by experienced planners. Twenty-six plans were used to train the KBP model using Varian RapidPlan. With the trained KBP model each KBP plan was automatically generated by an individual with little experience and compared with the expert plan (closed-loop validation). Twenty-two plans that had not been used for KBP model training were also compared with the KBP results (open-loop validation). Results: Although the minimal dose of PTV-B and PTV-E was lower and the maximal dose was higher than those of the expert plan, the difference was no larger than 0.7 Gy. In the closed-loop validation, D_1.2cc, D_0.35cc, and D_mean of the spinal cord was decreased by 0.9 Gy, 0.6 Gy, and 0.9 Gy, respectively, in the KBP plans (P<0.05). In the open-loop validation, only D_mean of the spinal cord was significantly decreased, by 0.5 Gy (P<0.05). Conclusions: The dose coverage and uniformity for PTV was slightly worse in the KBP for spine SBRT while the dose to the spinal cord was reduced, but the differences were small. Thus, inexperienced planners could easily generate a clinically feasible plan for spine SBRT by using KBP.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.30 no.1_2
• /
• pp.129-138
• /
• 2018

Purpose : An aim of this study was to compare the effect of multi leaf collimator(MLC) types for high dimension radiotherapy in treatment sites used clinically. Material and Method : 70 patients with lung cancer, spine cancer, prostate cancer, whole pelvis, head and neck, breast cancer were included in this study. High definition(HD) MLC of TrueBeam STx (Varian Medical system, Palo Alto, CA) and millenium(M) MLC of VitalBeam (Varian Medical system, Palo Alto, CA) were used. Radiotherapy plans were performed for each patient under same treatment goals with Eclipse (Version 13.7, Varian Palo Alto USA, CA). To compare the indicators of the radiotherapy plans, planning target volume(PTV) coverage, conformity index(CI), homogeneity index(HI), and clinical indicators for each treatment sites in normal tissues were evaluated. To evaluate low dose distribution, $V_{30%}$ values were compared according to MLC types. Additionally, length and volume of targets for each treatment sites were investigated. Result : In stereotatictic body radiotherapy(SBRT) plan for lung, the average value of PTV coverage was reduced by 0.52 % with HD MLC. With SBRT plan using HD MLC for spine, the average value of PTV coverage decreased by 0.63 % and maximum dose decreased by 1.13 %. In the test of CI and HI, the values in SBRT plan with HD MLC for spine were 1.144, 1.079 and the values using M MLC were 1.160, 1.092 in SBRT plan for lung, The dose evaluation of critical organ was reduced by 1.48 % in the ipsilateral lung mean dose with HD MLC. In prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) with HD MLC, the mean dose and the $V_{30}$ of bladder and the mean dose and the $V_{25}$ of rectum were reduced by 0.53 %, 1.42 %, 0.97 %, and 0.69 %, respectively (p<0.05). The average value of heart mean dose was reduced by 0.83 % in breast cancer VMAT with M MLC. Other assessment indices for treatment sites showed no significant difference between treatment plans with two types of MLC. Conclusion : Using HD MLC had a positive impact on the PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing in usually short or small targets such as lung and spine SBRT and prostate VMAT. But, there was no significant difference in targets with long and large such as lung, head and neck, and whole pelvis for VMAT.

• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.51-60
• /
• 2022

Objectives: The purpose is to evaluate dosimetric performance and delivery efficiency of VMAT with Halcyon LINAC for double target spine SBRT Materials and Methods: 12 patients with spine oligometastases were retrospectively studied. Single-isocenter spine SBRT plans was established using Halcyon® with Dual Layer MLC and Truebeam® with High Definition MLC. All patients' plans were created in Eclipse TPS through the identical conditions and optimization. C.I, H.I, G.I (Gradient Index), maximal and volumetric doses to spinal cord and low dose area were evaluated for comparison of both plans. Also, total MU and BOT(Beam On Time) were evaluated. Results: Halcyon plans was no Statistical differences in C.I and H.I. However, the average of G.I was 4.64 for Halcyon, which decreased to 5.5% compared to Truebeam (P<0.001). Halcyon plans demonstrated statistically significant reduced G.I. The average of 50% and 25% isodose volume was 487.56 cc (-3.82%, P<0.001), 1859.45 cc (-4.75%, P<0.001) in Halcyon, respectively. Significantly reduced low dose spill were observed in Halcyon plans. In the evaluation of the spinal cord, the average of Dmean and V10 of Halcyon plans in the sample group with an overlap volume of less than 1 cc was 6.802 Gy (-3.504%, P=0.067), 5.766±1.683 cc (-8.199%, P=0.002), respectively. Halcyon plans demonstrated statistically significant reduced D_mean and V10. For delivery efficiency, MU and BOT(maximum dose rate for each machine), on average, increased in Halcyon plans. However, the average of BOT(800MU/min for each machine) was 648.33 sec for Halcyon (-1.74%, P<0.001). Conclusion: Halcyon plan for double-target spine SBRT demonstrated advantages in the low dose area with a steep dose gradient, while having dosimetrically equivalent target dose distribution and spinal cord protective effect. As a result, Halcyon LINAC produced a dosimetrically improved plan for double-target spine SBRT.

• 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 $AXB_m$.