Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma. (8th November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Young, Michael R.; Craft, David L.; Colbert, Caroline M.; Remillard, Kyla; Vanbenthuysen, Liam; Wang, Yi
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 17:Number 6(2016)
• Page Start: 283
• Page End: 291
• Publication Date: 2016-11-08
• Subjects: VMAT -- MCO -- sarcoma -- treatment planning -- dosimetric comparison -- deliverability -- quality assurance; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6547
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract : This study evaluates the implementation of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using multicriteria optimization (MCO) in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) for complex sites, namely extremity and body sarcoma. The VMAT‐MCO algorithm implemented in RayStation is newly developed and requires an integrated, comprehensive analysis of plan generation, delivery, and treatment efficiency. Ten patients previously treated by intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO were randomly selected and replanned using VMAT‐MCO. The plan quality was compared using homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) and dose sparing of organs at risk (OARs). Given the diversity of the tumor location, the 10 plans did not have a common OAR except for skin. The skin D50 and D mean was directly compared between VMAT‐MCO and IMRT‐MCO. Additional OAR dose points were compared on a plan‐by‐plan basis. The treatment efficiency was compared using plan monitor units (MU) and net beam‐on time. Plan quality assurance was performed using the Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK phantom and a gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. No statistically significant differences were found between VMAT‐ and IMRT‐MCO for HI and CI of the PTV or D50 and D mean to the skin. The VMAT‐MCO plans showed general improvements in sparing to OARs. The VMAT‐MCO plan set showed statistically significant improvements over the IMRT‐MCO set in treatment efficiency per plan MU ( p < 0.05 ) and net beam‐on time ( p < 0.01 ). The VMAT‐MCO plan deliverability was validated. Similar gamma passing rates were observed for the two modalities. This study verifies the suitability of VMAT‐MCO for sarcoma cancer and highlighted the comparability in plan quality and improvement in treatment efficiency offered by VMAT‐MCO as compared to IMRT‐MCO. PACS number(s): separated by commas 87.55.D, 87.55.de, 87.55.Qr