Inverse planned constant dose rate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) as an efficient alternative to five-field intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate. Issue 1 (22nd April 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McGarry, Conor K.; McMahon, Stephen J.; Craft, David; O'Sullivan, Joe M.; Prise, Kevin M.; Hounsell, Alan R.
• Is Part Of: Journal of radiotherapy in practice. Volume 13:Issue 1(2013)
• Page Start: 68
• Page End: 78
• Publication Date: 2013-04-22
• Subjects: constant dose rate VMAT, -- IMRT, -- Pareto, -- prostate; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; 615.842005
• DOI: 10.1017/S1460396913000083
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1460-3969

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The aim of this work was to determine if volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, created for constant dose-rate (cdrVMAT) delivery are a viable alternative to step and shoot five-field intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Materials and methods: The cdrVMAT plans, inverse planned on a treatment planning system with no solution to account for couch top or rails, were created for delivery on a linear accelerator with no variable dose rate control system. A series of five-field IMRT and cdrVMAT plans were created using dual partial arcs (gantry rotating between 260° and 100°) with 4° control points for ten prostate patients with the average rectal constraint incrementally increased. Pareto fronts were compared for the planning target volume homogeneity and average rectal dose between the two techniques for each patient. Also investigated were tumour control probability and normal tissue complication probability values for each technique. The delivery parameters [monitor units (MU) and time] and delivery accuracy of the IMRT and VMAT plans were also compared. Results: Pareto fronts showed that the dual partial arc plans were superior to the five-field IMRT plans, particularly for the clinically acceptable plans where average rectal doses were less for rotational plans ( p = 0·009) with no statistical difference in target homogeneity. The cdrVMAT plans had significantly more MU ( p = 0·005) but the average delivery time was significantly less than the IMRT plans by 42%. All clinically acceptable cdrVMAT plans were accurate in their delivery (gamma 99·2 ± 1·1%, 3%3 mm criteria). Conclusions: Accurate delivery of dual partial arc cdrVMAT avoiding the couch top and rails has been demonstrated.