Cargando…

Plan quality analysis of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy treatment planning in liver tumor

PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in the liver, RTOG‐1112 guides the treatment modalities including the dose constraints for this technique but not the plan parameters. This study is not only analyzing the plan quality by utilizing the plan parameters and indexes but also compa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Watcharawipha, Anirut, Chakrabandhu, Somvilai, Kongsa, Anupong, Tippanya, Damrongsak, Chitapanarux, Imjai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10338832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36857202
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13948
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in the liver, RTOG‐1112 guides the treatment modalities including the dose constraints for this technique but not the plan parameters. This study is not only analyzing the plan quality by utilizing the plan parameters and indexes but also compares treatment modalities from the protocol implementation. METHOD AND MATERIAL: Twenty‐five patients treated in the period from February 2020 to September 2022 were recruited in this analysis. Two planners randomly selected the patients and modalities. The modalities employed were Volumetric‐Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT). Various parameters and indexes were used to access not only the plan quality but also to compare each modality. The parameters and indexes studied were the homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), gradient distance (GD), and the dose received by the organs at risk. RESULT: The data reveals that the mean volume of PTV is 60.8 ± 53.9 cc where these targets exhibit no significant difference between each modality. The HI shows a consistent value for both modalities. Between each modality, the CI value shows less deviation, but the HT shows slightly higher performance than VMAT. The value of GD is 1.5 ± 0.3 cm where the HT provides a shorter distance compared to VMAT as well. CONCLUSION: The parameters and indexes should be utilized for the plan evaluation although in the guidelines this was not required. Various modalities were employed for treatment. Both can achieve the treatment criteria with slightly low performance of VMAT.