Cargando…

Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE: A new development on the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) allows a plan to be planned by imposing a constraint on the leaf sequencing: all leaves move in the same direction before moving again in the opposite direction to create a succession of sliding windows (SWs). The study aim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rolland, Julien, Favrel, Véronique, Fau, Pierre, Mailleux, Hugues, Tallet, Agnès
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/PMC10476993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37144958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14013
_version_ 1785101052592259072
author Rolland, Julien
Favrel, Véronique
Fau, Pierre
Mailleux, Hugues
Tallet, Agnès
author_facet Rolland, Julien
Favrel, Véronique
Fau, Pierre
Mailleux, Hugues
Tallet, Agnès
author_sort Rolland, Julien
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: A new development on the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) allows a plan to be planned by imposing a constraint on the leaf sequencing: all leaves move in the same direction before moving again in the opposite direction to create a succession of sliding windows (SWs). The study aims to investigate this new leaf sequencing, coupled with standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) and to compare it with the standard sequencing (STD). METHODS: Sixty plans were replanned for 10 head and neck cancer patients (two dose levels simultaneously SIB, 56 and 70 Gy in 35 fractions). All plans were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was performed. Pre‐processing QA and metrics of multileaf collimator (MLC) complexity were studied. RESULTS: All methodologies met the dose requirements for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). SO demonstrates significantly best results for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and target coverage (TC). SO‐SW gives best results for PTVs (D (98%) and D (2%)) but the differences between techniques are less than 1%. Only the D (2%,PTV‐56 Gy) is higher with both MCO methods. MCO‐STD offer the best sparing OARs (parotids, spinal cord, larynx, oral cavity). The gamma passing rates (GPRs) with 3%/3 mm criteria between the measured and calculated dose distributions are higher than 95%, slightly lowest with SW. The number of monitor units (MUs) and MLC metrics are higher in SW show a higher modulation. CONCLUSIONS: All plans are feasible for the treatment. A clear advantage of SO‐SW is that the treatment plan is more straightforward to planning by the user due to the more advanced modulation. MCO stands out for its ease of use and will allow a less experienced user to offer a better plan than in SO. In addition, MCO‐STD will reduce the dose to the OARs while maintaining good TC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10476993
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104769932023-09-05 Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer Rolland, Julien Favrel, Véronique Fau, Pierre Mailleux, Hugues Tallet, Agnès J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: A new development on the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) allows a plan to be planned by imposing a constraint on the leaf sequencing: all leaves move in the same direction before moving again in the opposite direction to create a succession of sliding windows (SWs). The study aims to investigate this new leaf sequencing, coupled with standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) and to compare it with the standard sequencing (STD). METHODS: Sixty plans were replanned for 10 head and neck cancer patients (two dose levels simultaneously SIB, 56 and 70 Gy in 35 fractions). All plans were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was performed. Pre‐processing QA and metrics of multileaf collimator (MLC) complexity were studied. RESULTS: All methodologies met the dose requirements for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). SO demonstrates significantly best results for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and target coverage (TC). SO‐SW gives best results for PTVs (D (98%) and D (2%)) but the differences between techniques are less than 1%. Only the D (2%,PTV‐56 Gy) is higher with both MCO methods. MCO‐STD offer the best sparing OARs (parotids, spinal cord, larynx, oral cavity). The gamma passing rates (GPRs) with 3%/3 mm criteria between the measured and calculated dose distributions are higher than 95%, slightly lowest with SW. The number of monitor units (MUs) and MLC metrics are higher in SW show a higher modulation. CONCLUSIONS: All plans are feasible for the treatment. A clear advantage of SO‐SW is that the treatment plan is more straightforward to planning by the user due to the more advanced modulation. MCO stands out for its ease of use and will allow a less experienced user to offer a better plan than in SO. In addition, MCO‐STD will reduce the dose to the OARs while maintaining good TC. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10476993/ /pubmed/37144958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14013 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Rolland, Julien
Favrel, Véronique
Fau, Pierre
Mailleux, Hugues
Tallet, Agnès
Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer
title Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer
title_full Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer
title_fullStr Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer
title_full_unstemmed Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer
title_short Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer
title_sort dosimetric comparison of vmat standard optimization (so) and multi‐criteria optimization (mco) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (std) or sliding window (sw) for head and neck cancer
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37144958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14013
work_keys_str_mv AT rollandjulien dosimetriccomparisonofvmatstandardoptimizationsoandmulticriteriaoptimizationmcotreatmentplanswithstandardmodedeliverystdorslidingwindowswforheadandneckcancer
AT favrelveronique dosimetriccomparisonofvmatstandardoptimizationsoandmulticriteriaoptimizationmcotreatmentplanswithstandardmodedeliverystdorslidingwindowswforheadandneckcancer
AT faupierre dosimetriccomparisonofvmatstandardoptimizationsoandmulticriteriaoptimizationmcotreatmentplanswithstandardmodedeliverystdorslidingwindowswforheadandneckcancer
AT mailleuxhugues dosimetriccomparisonofvmatstandardoptimizationsoandmulticriteriaoptimizationmcotreatmentplanswithstandardmodedeliverystdorslidingwindowswforheadandneckcancer
AT talletagnes dosimetriccomparisonofvmatstandardoptimizationsoandmulticriteriaoptimizationmcotreatmentplanswithstandardmodedeliverystdorslidingwindowswforheadandneckcancer