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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |