Cargando…

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma

This study evaluates the implementation of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using multicriteria optimization (MCO) in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) for complex sites, namely extremity and body sarcoma. The VMAT‐MCO algorithm implemented in RayStation is newly developed and re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Young, Michael R., Craft, David L., Colbert, Caroline M., Remillard, Kyla, Vanbenthuysen, Liam, Wang, Yi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27929501
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6547
_version_ 1783279627805917184
author Young, Michael R.
Craft, David L.
Colbert, Caroline M.
Remillard, Kyla
Vanbenthuysen, Liam
Wang, Yi
author_facet Young, Michael R.
Craft, David L.
Colbert, Caroline M.
Remillard, Kyla
Vanbenthuysen, Liam
Wang, Yi
author_sort Young, Michael R.
collection PubMed
description This study evaluates the implementation of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using multicriteria optimization (MCO) in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) for complex sites, namely extremity and body sarcoma. The VMAT‐MCO algorithm implemented in RayStation is newly developed and requires an integrated, comprehensive analysis of plan generation, delivery, and treatment efficiency. Ten patients previously treated by intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO were randomly selected and replanned using VMAT‐MCO. The plan quality was compared using homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) and dose sparing of organs at risk (OARs). Given the diversity of the tumor location, the 10 plans did not have a common OAR except for skin. The skin D(50) and [Formula: see text] was directly compared between VMAT‐MCO and IMRT‐MCO. Additional OAR dose points were compared on a plan‐by‐plan basis. The treatment efficiency was compared using plan monitor units (MU) and net beam‐on time. Plan quality assurance was performed using the Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK phantom and a gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. No statistically significant differences were found between VMAT‐ and IMRT‐MCO for HI and CI of the PTV or D(50) and [Formula: see text] to the skin. The VMAT‐MCO plans showed general improvements in sparing to OARs. The VMAT‐MCO plan set showed statistically significant improvements over the IMRT‐MCO set in treatment efficiency per plan MU ([Formula: see text]) and net beam‐on time ([Formula: see text]). The VMAT‐MCO plan deliverability was validated. Similar gamma passing rates were observed for the two modalities. This study verifies the suitability of VMAT‐MCO for sarcoma cancer and highlighted the comparability in plan quality and improvement in treatment efficiency offered by VMAT‐MCO as compared to IMRT‐MCO. PACS number(s): separated by commas 87.55.D, 87.55.de, 87.55.Qr
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690529
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56905292018-04-02 Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma Young, Michael R. Craft, David L. Colbert, Caroline M. Remillard, Kyla Vanbenthuysen, Liam Wang, Yi J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This study evaluates the implementation of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using multicriteria optimization (MCO) in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) for complex sites, namely extremity and body sarcoma. The VMAT‐MCO algorithm implemented in RayStation is newly developed and requires an integrated, comprehensive analysis of plan generation, delivery, and treatment efficiency. Ten patients previously treated by intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO were randomly selected and replanned using VMAT‐MCO. The plan quality was compared using homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) and dose sparing of organs at risk (OARs). Given the diversity of the tumor location, the 10 plans did not have a common OAR except for skin. The skin D(50) and [Formula: see text] was directly compared between VMAT‐MCO and IMRT‐MCO. Additional OAR dose points were compared on a plan‐by‐plan basis. The treatment efficiency was compared using plan monitor units (MU) and net beam‐on time. Plan quality assurance was performed using the Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK phantom and a gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. No statistically significant differences were found between VMAT‐ and IMRT‐MCO for HI and CI of the PTV or D(50) and [Formula: see text] to the skin. The VMAT‐MCO plans showed general improvements in sparing to OARs. The VMAT‐MCO plan set showed statistically significant improvements over the IMRT‐MCO set in treatment efficiency per plan MU ([Formula: see text]) and net beam‐on time ([Formula: see text]). The VMAT‐MCO plan deliverability was validated. Similar gamma passing rates were observed for the two modalities. This study verifies the suitability of VMAT‐MCO for sarcoma cancer and highlighted the comparability in plan quality and improvement in treatment efficiency offered by VMAT‐MCO as compared to IMRT‐MCO. PACS number(s): separated by commas 87.55.D, 87.55.de, 87.55.Qr John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690529/ /pubmed/27929501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6547 Text en © 2016 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
Young, Michael R.
Craft, David L.
Colbert, Caroline M.
Remillard, Kyla
Vanbenthuysen, Liam
Wang, Yi
Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma
title Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma
title_full Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma
title_fullStr Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma
title_full_unstemmed Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma
title_short Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma
title_sort volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27929501
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6547
work_keys_str_mv AT youngmichaelr volumetricmodulatedarctherapyusingmulticriteriaoptimizationforbodyandextremitysarcoma
AT craftdavidl volumetricmodulatedarctherapyusingmulticriteriaoptimizationforbodyandextremitysarcoma
AT colbertcarolinem volumetricmodulatedarctherapyusingmulticriteriaoptimizationforbodyandextremitysarcoma
AT remillardkyla volumetricmodulatedarctherapyusingmulticriteriaoptimizationforbodyandextremitysarcoma
AT vanbenthuysenliam volumetricmodulatedarctherapyusingmulticriteriaoptimizationforbodyandextremitysarcoma
AT wangyi volumetricmodulatedarctherapyusingmulticriteriaoptimizationforbodyandextremitysarcoma