Cargando…

Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers

This dosimetric study investigated the impact of multileaf collimators (MLC) leaf width in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancers (HNC), either with a “standard” simultaneously integrated boost technique (S‐SIB) or with a “dose painting” SIB technique (DP‐SIB). HNC patient...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lafond, Caroline, Chajon, Enrique, Devillers, Anne, Louvel, Guillaume, Toublanc, Sandra, Olivier, Mickael, Simon, Antoine, de Crevoisier, Renaud, Manens, Jean‐Pierre
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24257269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4074
_version_ 1783283620674273280
author Lafond, Caroline
Chajon, Enrique
Devillers, Anne
Louvel, Guillaume
Toublanc, Sandra
Olivier, Mickael
Simon, Antoine
de Crevoisier, Renaud
Manens, Jean‐Pierre
author_facet Lafond, Caroline
Chajon, Enrique
Devillers, Anne
Louvel, Guillaume
Toublanc, Sandra
Olivier, Mickael
Simon, Antoine
de Crevoisier, Renaud
Manens, Jean‐Pierre
author_sort Lafond, Caroline
collection PubMed
description This dosimetric study investigated the impact of multileaf collimators (MLC) leaf width in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancers (HNC), either with a “standard” simultaneously integrated boost technique (S‐SIB) or with a “dose painting” SIB technique (DP‐SIB). HNC patients were planned either with an S‐SIB comprising three dose levels, from 56 to 70 Gy (16 patients), or with a DP‐SIB comprising five dose levels, from 56 to 84 Gy (8 patients), in 35 fractions. Two VMAT plans were calculated for each SIB technique using two Elekta MLCs: MLCi2 with 10 mm leaf width and Beam Modulator (BM) with 4 mm leaf width. Dose distributions were evaluated by comparing doses on PTVs, main OARs, and healthy tissue, and by comparing conformation indexes. Treatment efficiencies were evaluated by comparing the number of monitor units and the number of needed arcs. Comparisons of the two MLCs depending on the two SIB techniques showed: i) Regarding PTVs: Dmean and D2% on lower doses PTV decreased respectively by 0.5 Gy [Formula: see text] and 0.9 Gy [Formula: see text] with BM than with MLCi2 for S‐SIB; no significant difference was found for DP‐SIB; ii) Regarding OARs: for spinal cord and brainstem, D2% decreased respectively by 1.2 Gy [Formula: see text] and 4.2 Gy [Formula: see text] with BM than with MLCi2 for S‐SIB; for controlateral parotid, D50% decreased by 1.5 Gy [Formula: see text] with BM than with MLCi2 for S‐SIB; iii) Regarding treatment efficiency : the number of monitor units was 44% [Formula: see text] and 51% [Formula: see text] higher with BM for S‐SIB and DP‐SIB, respectively. Two arcs were more frequently needed with BM to reach an acceptable dose distribution. This study demonstrated that Beam Modulator (4 mm leaf width) and MLCi2 (10 mm leaf width) MLCs from Elekta provided satisfactory dose distributions for treatment delivery with VMAT technique for complex HNC cases with standard and dose painting prescriptions. OAR sparing was better with BM, mainly for brainstem and spinal cord. However, delivery efficiency of VMAT plans was better with MLCi2. PACS numbers: 87.56.N‐, 87.56.nk, 87.55.D‐
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5714620
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57146202018-04-02 Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers Lafond, Caroline Chajon, Enrique Devillers, Anne Louvel, Guillaume Toublanc, Sandra Olivier, Mickael Simon, Antoine de Crevoisier, Renaud Manens, Jean‐Pierre J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This dosimetric study investigated the impact of multileaf collimators (MLC) leaf width in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancers (HNC), either with a “standard” simultaneously integrated boost technique (S‐SIB) or with a “dose painting” SIB technique (DP‐SIB). HNC patients were planned either with an S‐SIB comprising three dose levels, from 56 to 70 Gy (16 patients), or with a DP‐SIB comprising five dose levels, from 56 to 84 Gy (8 patients), in 35 fractions. Two VMAT plans were calculated for each SIB technique using two Elekta MLCs: MLCi2 with 10 mm leaf width and Beam Modulator (BM) with 4 mm leaf width. Dose distributions were evaluated by comparing doses on PTVs, main OARs, and healthy tissue, and by comparing conformation indexes. Treatment efficiencies were evaluated by comparing the number of monitor units and the number of needed arcs. Comparisons of the two MLCs depending on the two SIB techniques showed: i) Regarding PTVs: Dmean and D2% on lower doses PTV decreased respectively by 0.5 Gy [Formula: see text] and 0.9 Gy [Formula: see text] with BM than with MLCi2 for S‐SIB; no significant difference was found for DP‐SIB; ii) Regarding OARs: for spinal cord and brainstem, D2% decreased respectively by 1.2 Gy [Formula: see text] and 4.2 Gy [Formula: see text] with BM than with MLCi2 for S‐SIB; for controlateral parotid, D50% decreased by 1.5 Gy [Formula: see text] with BM than with MLCi2 for S‐SIB; iii) Regarding treatment efficiency : the number of monitor units was 44% [Formula: see text] and 51% [Formula: see text] higher with BM for S‐SIB and DP‐SIB, respectively. Two arcs were more frequently needed with BM to reach an acceptable dose distribution. This study demonstrated that Beam Modulator (4 mm leaf width) and MLCi2 (10 mm leaf width) MLCs from Elekta provided satisfactory dose distributions for treatment delivery with VMAT technique for complex HNC cases with standard and dose painting prescriptions. OAR sparing was better with BM, mainly for brainstem and spinal cord. However, delivery efficiency of VMAT plans was better with MLCi2. PACS numbers: 87.56.N‐, 87.56.nk, 87.55.D‐ John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5714620/ /pubmed/24257269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4074 Text en © 2013 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
Lafond, Caroline
Chajon, Enrique
Devillers, Anne
Louvel, Guillaume
Toublanc, Sandra
Olivier, Mickael
Simon, Antoine
de Crevoisier, Renaud
Manens, Jean‐Pierre
Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers
title Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers
title_full Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers
title_fullStr Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers
title_full_unstemmed Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers
title_short Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers
title_sort impact of mlc leaf width on volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24257269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4074
work_keys_str_mv AT lafondcaroline impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers
AT chajonenrique impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers
AT devillersanne impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers
AT louvelguillaume impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers
AT toublancsandra impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers
AT oliviermickael impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers
AT simonantoine impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers
AT decrevoisierrenaud impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers
AT manensjeanpierre impactofmlcleafwidthonvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanningforheadandneckcancers