Cargando…

Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT)

This study compared the dosimetric performance of (a) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with standard optimization (STD) and (b) multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) to (c) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO for hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT) in R...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zieminski, Stephen, Khandekar, Melin, Wang, Yi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5849843/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29411526
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12277
_version_ 1783306116928634880
author Zieminski, Stephen
Khandekar, Melin
Wang, Yi
author_facet Zieminski, Stephen
Khandekar, Melin
Wang, Yi
author_sort Zieminski, Stephen
collection PubMed
description This study compared the dosimetric performance of (a) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with standard optimization (STD) and (b) multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) to (c) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO for hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT) in RayStation treatment planning system (TPS). Ten HA‐WBRT patients previously treated with MCO‐IMRT or MCO‐VMAT on an Elekta Infinity accelerator with Agility multileaf collimators (5‐mm leaves) were re‐planned for the other two modalities. All patients received 30 Gy in 15 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV), namely, PTV30 expanded with a 2‐mm margin from the whole brain excluding hippocampus with margin. The patients all had metastatic lesions (up to 12) of variable sizes and proximity to the hippocampus, treated with an additional 7.5 Gy from a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to PTV37.5. The IMRT plans used eight to eleven non‐coplanar fields, whereas the VMAT plans used two coplanar full arcs and a vertex half arc. The averaged target coverage, dose to organs‐at‐risk (OARs) and monitor unit provided by the three modalities were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was performed. MCO‐VMAT provided statistically significant reduction of D100 of hippocampus compared to STD‐VMAT, and Dmax of cochleas compared to MCO‐IMRT. With statistical significance, MCO‐VMAT improved V30 of PTV30 by 14.2% and 4.8%, respectively, compared to MCO‐IMRT and STD‐VMAT. It also raised D95 of PTV37.5 by 0.4 Gy compared to both MCO‐IMRT and STD‐VMAT. Improved plan quality parameters such as a decrease in overall plan Dmax and total monitor units (MU) were also observed for MCO‐VMAT. MCO‐VMAT is found to be the optimal modality for HA‐WBRT in terms of PTV coverage, OAR sparing and delivery efficiency, compared to MCO‐IMRT or STD‐VMAT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5849843
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58498432018-04-02 Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT) Zieminski, Stephen Khandekar, Melin Wang, Yi J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This study compared the dosimetric performance of (a) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with standard optimization (STD) and (b) multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) to (c) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO for hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT) in RayStation treatment planning system (TPS). Ten HA‐WBRT patients previously treated with MCO‐IMRT or MCO‐VMAT on an Elekta Infinity accelerator with Agility multileaf collimators (5‐mm leaves) were re‐planned for the other two modalities. All patients received 30 Gy in 15 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV), namely, PTV30 expanded with a 2‐mm margin from the whole brain excluding hippocampus with margin. The patients all had metastatic lesions (up to 12) of variable sizes and proximity to the hippocampus, treated with an additional 7.5 Gy from a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to PTV37.5. The IMRT plans used eight to eleven non‐coplanar fields, whereas the VMAT plans used two coplanar full arcs and a vertex half arc. The averaged target coverage, dose to organs‐at‐risk (OARs) and monitor unit provided by the three modalities were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was performed. MCO‐VMAT provided statistically significant reduction of D100 of hippocampus compared to STD‐VMAT, and Dmax of cochleas compared to MCO‐IMRT. With statistical significance, MCO‐VMAT improved V30 of PTV30 by 14.2% and 4.8%, respectively, compared to MCO‐IMRT and STD‐VMAT. It also raised D95 of PTV37.5 by 0.4 Gy compared to both MCO‐IMRT and STD‐VMAT. Improved plan quality parameters such as a decrease in overall plan Dmax and total monitor units (MU) were also observed for MCO‐VMAT. MCO‐VMAT is found to be the optimal modality for HA‐WBRT in terms of PTV coverage, OAR sparing and delivery efficiency, compared to MCO‐IMRT or STD‐VMAT. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5849843/ /pubmed/29411526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12277 Text en © 2018 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
Zieminski, Stephen
Khandekar, Melin
Wang, Yi
Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT)
title Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT)
title_full Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT)
title_fullStr Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT)
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT)
title_short Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT)
title_sort assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (mco) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (vmat) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (ha‐wbrt)
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5849843/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29411526
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12277
work_keys_str_mv AT zieminskistephen assessmentofmulticriteriaoptimizationmcoforvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatinhippocampalavoidancewholebrainradiationtherapyhawbrt
AT khandekarmelin assessmentofmulticriteriaoptimizationmcoforvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatinhippocampalavoidancewholebrainradiationtherapyhawbrt
AT wangyi assessmentofmulticriteriaoptimizationmcoforvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatinhippocampalavoidancewholebrainradiationtherapyhawbrt