Interplay effect on a 6‐MV flattening‐filter‐free linear accelerator with high dose rate and fast multi‐leaf collimator motion treating breast and lung phantoms. Issue 6 (24th April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Netherton, Tucker; Li, Yuting; Nitsch, Paige; Shaitelman, Simona; Balter, Peter; Gao, Song; Klopp, Ann; Muruganandham, Manickam; Court, Laurence
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 45:Issue 6(2018)
• Page Start: 2369
• Page End: 2376
• Publication Date: 2018-04-24
• Subjects: FFF linac -- interplay -- IMRT -- VMAT; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.12899
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Using a new linear accelerator with high dose rate (800 MU/min), fast MLC motions (5.0 cm/s), fast gantry rotation (15 s/rotation), and 1 cm wide MLCs, we aimed to quantify the effects of complexity, arc number, and fractionation on interplay for breast and lung treatments under target motion. Methods: To study lung interplay, eight VMAT plans (1–6 arcs) and four‐nine‐field sliding‐window IMRT plans varying in complexity were created. For the breast plans, four‐four‐field sliding‐window IMRT plans were created. Using the Halcyon 1.0 linear accelerator, each plan was delivered five times each under sinusoidal breathing motion to a phantom with 20 implanted MOSFET detectors; MOSFET dose (cGy), delivery time, and MU/cGy values were recorded. Maximum and mean dose deviations were calculated from MOSFET data. The number of MOSFETs with at least 19 of 20 detectors agreeing with their expected dose within 5% per fraction was calculated across 10 6 iterations to model dose deviation as function of fraction number for all plan variants. To put interplay plans into clinical context, additional IMRT and VMAT plans were created and delivered for the sites of head and neck, prostate, whole brain, breast, pelvis, and lung. Average modulation and interplay effect were compared to those from conventional linear accelerators, as reported from previous studies. Results: The mean beam modulation for plans created for the Halcyon 1.0 linear accelerator was 2.9 MU/cGy (two‐ to four‐field IMRT breast plans), 6.2 MU/cGy (at least five‐field IMRT), and 3.6 MU/cGy (four‐arc VMAT). To achieve treatment plan objectives, Halcyon 1.0 VMAT plans require more arcs and modulation than VMAT on conventional linear accelerators. Maximum and mean dose deviations increased with increasing plan complexity under tumor motion for breast and lung treatments. Concerning VMAT plans under motion, maximum, and mean dose deviations were higher for one arc than for two arcs regardless of plan complexity. For plan variants with maximum dose deviations greater than 3.7%, dose deviation as a function of fraction number was protracted. Conclusion: For treatments on the Halcyon 1.0 linear accelerator, the convergence of dose deviation with fraction number happened more slowly than reported for conventional linear accelerators. However, if plan complexity is reduced for IMRT and if tumor motion is less than ~10‐mm, interplay is greatly reduced. To minimize dose deviations across multiple fractions for dynamic targets, we recommend limiting treatment plan complexity and avoiding one‐arc VMAT on the Halcyon 1.0 linear accelerator when interplay is a concern.