Cargando…

Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams

The aim of this study is to assess the suitability of 5 mm millennium multileaf collimator (MMLC) for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)‐based lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Thirty lung SBRT patient treatment plans along with their planning target volumes (ranging from 2.01 cc to 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Subramanian, Shanmuga V., Subramani, Vellaiyan, Swamy, Shanmugam Thirumalai, Gandhi, Arun, Chilukuri, Srinivas, Kathirvel, Murugesan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690010/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26219006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5415
_version_ 1783279508740112384
author Subramanian, Shanmuga V.
Subramani, Vellaiyan
Swamy, Shanmugam Thirumalai
Gandhi, Arun
Chilukuri, Srinivas
Kathirvel, Murugesan
author_facet Subramanian, Shanmuga V.
Subramani, Vellaiyan
Swamy, Shanmugam Thirumalai
Gandhi, Arun
Chilukuri, Srinivas
Kathirvel, Murugesan
author_sort Subramanian, Shanmuga V.
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study is to assess the suitability of 5 mm millennium multileaf collimator (MMLC) for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)‐based lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Thirty lung SBRT patient treatment plans along with their planning target volumes (ranging from 2.01 cc to 150.11 cc) were transferred to an inhomogeneous lung phantom and retrospectively planned using VMAT technique, along with the high definition multileaf collimator (HDMLC) and MMLC systems. The plans were evaluated using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG‐0813) treatment planning criteria for target coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiency for both the MMLC and HDMLC systems using flat and flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams. Irrespective of the target volumes, both the MLC systems were able to satisfy the RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria without having any major deviation. Dose conformity was marginally better with HDMLC. The average conformity index (CI) value was found to be [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for HDMLC and MMLC plans, respectively. For the 6 MV FFF beams, the plan was slightly more conformal, with the average CI values of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for the HDMLC and MMLC plans, respectively. The high dose spillage was the maximum for 2 cc volume set (3% for HDMLC and 3.1% for MMLC). In the case of low dose spillage, both the MLCs were within the protocol of no deviation, except for the 2 cc volume set. The results from this study revealed that VMAT‐based lung SBRT using 5 mm MMLC satisfies the RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for the studied target size and shapes. PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly, 87.53D, 87.56.jk
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690010
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56900102018-04-02 Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams Subramanian, Shanmuga V. Subramani, Vellaiyan Swamy, Shanmugam Thirumalai Gandhi, Arun Chilukuri, Srinivas Kathirvel, Murugesan J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The aim of this study is to assess the suitability of 5 mm millennium multileaf collimator (MMLC) for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)‐based lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Thirty lung SBRT patient treatment plans along with their planning target volumes (ranging from 2.01 cc to 150.11 cc) were transferred to an inhomogeneous lung phantom and retrospectively planned using VMAT technique, along with the high definition multileaf collimator (HDMLC) and MMLC systems. The plans were evaluated using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG‐0813) treatment planning criteria for target coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiency for both the MMLC and HDMLC systems using flat and flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams. Irrespective of the target volumes, both the MLC systems were able to satisfy the RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria without having any major deviation. Dose conformity was marginally better with HDMLC. The average conformity index (CI) value was found to be [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for HDMLC and MMLC plans, respectively. For the 6 MV FFF beams, the plan was slightly more conformal, with the average CI values of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for the HDMLC and MMLC plans, respectively. The high dose spillage was the maximum for 2 cc volume set (3% for HDMLC and 3.1% for MMLC). In the case of low dose spillage, both the MLCs were within the protocol of no deviation, except for the 2 cc volume set. The results from this study revealed that VMAT‐based lung SBRT using 5 mm MMLC satisfies the RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for the studied target size and shapes. PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly, 87.53D, 87.56.jk John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690010/ /pubmed/26219006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5415 Text en © 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Subramanian, Shanmuga V.
Subramani, Vellaiyan
Swamy, Shanmugam Thirumalai
Gandhi, Arun
Chilukuri, Srinivas
Kathirvel, Murugesan
Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams
title Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams
title_full Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams
title_fullStr Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams
title_full_unstemmed Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams
title_short Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT‐based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams
title_sort is 5 mm mmlc suitable for vmat‐based lung sbrt? a dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm hdmlc using rtog‐0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high‐dose flattening filter‐free photon beams
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690010/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26219006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5415
work_keys_str_mv AT subramanianshanmugav is5mmmmlcsuitableforvmatbasedlungsbrtadosimetriccomparisonwith25mmhdmlcusingrtog0813treatmentplanningcriteriaforbothconventionalandhighdoseflatteningfilterfreephotonbeams
AT subramanivellaiyan is5mmmmlcsuitableforvmatbasedlungsbrtadosimetriccomparisonwith25mmhdmlcusingrtog0813treatmentplanningcriteriaforbothconventionalandhighdoseflatteningfilterfreephotonbeams
AT swamyshanmugamthirumalai is5mmmmlcsuitableforvmatbasedlungsbrtadosimetriccomparisonwith25mmhdmlcusingrtog0813treatmentplanningcriteriaforbothconventionalandhighdoseflatteningfilterfreephotonbeams
AT gandhiarun is5mmmmlcsuitableforvmatbasedlungsbrtadosimetriccomparisonwith25mmhdmlcusingrtog0813treatmentplanningcriteriaforbothconventionalandhighdoseflatteningfilterfreephotonbeams
AT chilukurisrinivas is5mmmmlcsuitableforvmatbasedlungsbrtadosimetriccomparisonwith25mmhdmlcusingrtog0813treatmentplanningcriteriaforbothconventionalandhighdoseflatteningfilterfreephotonbeams
AT kathirvelmurugesan is5mmmmlcsuitableforvmatbasedlungsbrtadosimetriccomparisonwith25mmhdmlcusingrtog0813treatmentplanningcriteriaforbothconventionalandhighdoseflatteningfilterfreephotonbeams