Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis. (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: To, David; Xhaferllari, Ilma; Liu, Manju; Liang, Jian; Knill, Cory; Nandalur, Sirisha; Gustafson, Gary; Lack, Danielle
• Is Part Of: Technology in cancer research & treatment. Volume 20(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Technological innovations -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1177/15330338211038490
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1533-0346

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, we investigate linac volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning strategies for bilateral hip prostheses prostate patients with respect to plan quality and deliverability, while limiting entrance dose to the prostheses.Methods: Three VMAT plans were retrospectively created for 20 patients: (1) partial arcs (PA), (2) 2 full arcs optimized with 500 cGy max prostheses dose (MD), and (3) 2 full arcs optimized with max dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraint of 500 cGy to 10% prostheses volume (MDVH). PA techniques contained 6 PA with beam angles that avoid entering each prosthesis. For each patient, other than prostheses constraints, the same Pinnacle VMAT optimization objectives were used. Plans were normalized with PTV D95% = 79.2 Gy prescription dose. Organ-at-risk DVH metrics, monitor units (MUs), conformality, gradient, and homogeneity indices were evaluated for each plan. Mean entrance prosthesis dose was determined in Pinnacle by converting each arc into static beams and utilizing only control points traversing each prosthesis. Plan deliverability was evaluated with SunNuclear ArcCheck measurements (gamma criteria 3%/2 mm) on an Elekta machine.Results: MD and MDVH had similar dosimetric quality, both improved DVH metrics for rectum and bladder compared to PA. Plan complexities among all plans were similar (average MUs: 441-518). Conformality, homogeneity, and gradient indices were significantly improved in MD and MDVH versus PA ( P < .001). Gamma pass rates for MD (99.0 ± 1.2%) and MDVH (99.2 ± 0.99%) were comparable. A significant difference over PA was observed (96.8 ± 1.6%, P < .001). Field-by-field analysis demonstrated 12/20 PA plans resulted in fields with pass rates <95% versus 1/20 plans for MD and none for MDVH. Cumulative mean entrance doses to each prosthesis were 62.9 ± 17.7 cGy for MD plans and 83.4 ± 27.5 cGy for MDVH plans.Conclusion: MD and MDVH plans had improved dosimetric quality and deliverability over PA plans with minimal entrance doses (∼1% of prescription) to each prosthesis and are an improved alternative for bilateral prostheses prostate patients.