Cargando…

Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning

RaySearch RayStation Fallback (FB) planning module can generate an equivalent backup radiotherapy treatment plan facilitating treatment on other linear accelerators. FB plans were generated from the RayStation FB module by simulating the original plan target and organ at risk (OAR) dose distribution...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Xin, Penagaricano, Jose, Narayanasamy, Ganesh, Corry, Peter, Liu, TianXiao, Sanjay, Maraboyina, Paudel, Nava, Morrill, Steven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28291935
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12032
_version_ 1783279475935412224
author Zhang, Xin
Penagaricano, Jose
Narayanasamy, Ganesh
Corry, Peter
Liu, TianXiao
Sanjay, Maraboyina
Paudel, Nava
Morrill, Steven
author_facet Zhang, Xin
Penagaricano, Jose
Narayanasamy, Ganesh
Corry, Peter
Liu, TianXiao
Sanjay, Maraboyina
Paudel, Nava
Morrill, Steven
author_sort Zhang, Xin
collection PubMed
description RaySearch RayStation Fallback (FB) planning module can generate an equivalent backup radiotherapy treatment plan facilitating treatment on other linear accelerators. FB plans were generated from the RayStation FB module by simulating the original plan target and organ at risk (OAR) dose distribution and delivered in various backup linear accelerators. In this study, helical tomotherapy (HT) backup plans used in Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator were generated with the RayStation FB module. About 30 patients, 10 with lung cancer, 10 with head and neck (HN) cancer, and 10 with prostate cancer, who were treated with HT, were included in this study. Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy Fallback plans (FB‐IMRT) were generated for all patients, and three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy Fallback plans (FB‐3D) were only generated for lung cancer patients. Dosimetric comparison study evaluated FB plans based on dose coverage to 95% of the PTV volume (R(95)), PTV mean dose (D(mean)), Paddick's conformity index (CI), and dose homogeneity index (HI). The evaluation results showed that all IMRT plans were statistically comparable between HT and FB‐IMRT plans except that PTV HI was worse in prostate, and PTV R(95) and HI were worse in HN multitarget plans for FB‐IMRT plans. For 3D lung cancer plans, only the PTV R(95) was statistically comparable between HT and FB‐3D plans, PTV D(mean) was higher, and CI and HI were worse compared to HT plans. The FB plans using a TrueBeam linear accelerator generally offer better OAR sparing compared to HT plans for all the patients. In this study, all cases of FB‐IMRT plans and 9/10 cases of FB‐3D plans were clinically acceptable without further modification and optimization once the FB plans were generated. However, the statistical differences between HT and FB‐IMRT/3D plans might not be of any clinically significant. One FB‐3D plan failed to simulate the original plan without further optimization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5689873
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56898732018-04-02 Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning Zhang, Xin Penagaricano, Jose Narayanasamy, Ganesh Corry, Peter Liu, TianXiao Sanjay, Maraboyina Paudel, Nava Morrill, Steven J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics RaySearch RayStation Fallback (FB) planning module can generate an equivalent backup radiotherapy treatment plan facilitating treatment on other linear accelerators. FB plans were generated from the RayStation FB module by simulating the original plan target and organ at risk (OAR) dose distribution and delivered in various backup linear accelerators. In this study, helical tomotherapy (HT) backup plans used in Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator were generated with the RayStation FB module. About 30 patients, 10 with lung cancer, 10 with head and neck (HN) cancer, and 10 with prostate cancer, who were treated with HT, were included in this study. Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy Fallback plans (FB‐IMRT) were generated for all patients, and three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy Fallback plans (FB‐3D) were only generated for lung cancer patients. Dosimetric comparison study evaluated FB plans based on dose coverage to 95% of the PTV volume (R(95)), PTV mean dose (D(mean)), Paddick's conformity index (CI), and dose homogeneity index (HI). The evaluation results showed that all IMRT plans were statistically comparable between HT and FB‐IMRT plans except that PTV HI was worse in prostate, and PTV R(95) and HI were worse in HN multitarget plans for FB‐IMRT plans. For 3D lung cancer plans, only the PTV R(95) was statistically comparable between HT and FB‐3D plans, PTV D(mean) was higher, and CI and HI were worse compared to HT plans. The FB plans using a TrueBeam linear accelerator generally offer better OAR sparing compared to HT plans for all the patients. In this study, all cases of FB‐IMRT plans and 9/10 cases of FB‐3D plans were clinically acceptable without further modification and optimization once the FB plans were generated. However, the statistical differences between HT and FB‐IMRT/3D plans might not be of any clinically significant. One FB‐3D plan failed to simulate the original plan without further optimization. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5689873/ /pubmed/28291935 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12032 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://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
Zhang, Xin
Penagaricano, Jose
Narayanasamy, Ganesh
Corry, Peter
Liu, TianXiao
Sanjay, Maraboyina
Paudel, Nava
Morrill, Steven
Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning
title Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning
title_full Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning
title_fullStr Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning
title_full_unstemmed Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning
title_short Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning
title_sort helical tomotherapy to linac plan conversion utilizing raystation fallback planning
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28291935
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12032
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangxin helicaltomotherapytolinacplanconversionutilizingraystationfallbackplanning
AT penagaricanojose helicaltomotherapytolinacplanconversionutilizingraystationfallbackplanning
AT narayanasamyganesh helicaltomotherapytolinacplanconversionutilizingraystationfallbackplanning
AT corrypeter helicaltomotherapytolinacplanconversionutilizingraystationfallbackplanning
AT liutianxiao helicaltomotherapytolinacplanconversionutilizingraystationfallbackplanning
AT sanjaymaraboyina helicaltomotherapytolinacplanconversionutilizingraystationfallbackplanning
AT paudelnava helicaltomotherapytolinacplanconversionutilizingraystationfallbackplanning
AT morrillsteven helicaltomotherapytolinacplanconversionutilizingraystationfallbackplanning