Cargando…

Field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack MLC LINAC using flattening‐filter‐free beams

BACKGROUND: This study intends to develop an efficient field‐in‐field (FiF) planning technique with the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) to determine the feasibility of using the Halcyon treatment delivery system for 3D treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: Ten treatment plans were prepared on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morris, Robert, Laugeman, Eric, Hilliard, Jessica, Zoberi, Imran, Heerman, Ana, Hugo, Geoffrey, Mutic, Sasa, Cai, Bin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31617671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12722
_version_ 1783467410411487232
author Morris, Robert
Laugeman, Eric
Hilliard, Jessica
Zoberi, Imran
Heerman, Ana
Hugo, Geoffrey
Mutic, Sasa
Cai, Bin
author_facet Morris, Robert
Laugeman, Eric
Hilliard, Jessica
Zoberi, Imran
Heerman, Ana
Hugo, Geoffrey
Mutic, Sasa
Cai, Bin
author_sort Morris, Robert
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study intends to develop an efficient field‐in‐field (FiF) planning technique with the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) to determine the feasibility of using the Halcyon treatment delivery system for 3D treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: Ten treatment plans were prepared on the Halcyon treatment planning system and compared to the same patients’ clinically delivered TrueBeam plans which used flattened 6 MV and 10 MV beams. Patients selected for this study were treated via simple, tangential breast irradiation and did not receive radiotherapy of the supraclavicular or internal mammary lymph nodes. Planning target volumes (PTV) volumes ranged from 519 cc to 1211 cc with a mean target volume of 877 cc. Several planning techniques involving collimator, gantry rotation, and number of FiF segments were investigated as well as the use of the dynamically flattened beam (DFB) — a predefined MLC pattern that is designed to provide a flattened beam profile at 10 cm depth on a standard water phantom. For comparison, the clinically delivered TrueBeam plans remained unaltered except for normalization of the target coverage to more readily compare the two treatment delivery techniques. RESULTS: Using the physician defined PTV, normalized such that 98% of the volume was covered by 95% of the prescribed dose, the Halcyon plans were deemed clinically acceptable and comparable to the TrueBeam plans by the radiation oncologist. Resulting average global maximum doses in the test patients were identical between the TrueBeam and Halcyon plans (108% of Rx) and a mean PTV dose of 102.5% vs 101.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From this study a practical and efficient planning method for delivering 3D conformal breast radiotherapy using the Halcyon linear accelerator has been developed. When normalized to the clinically desired coverage, hot spots were maintained to acceptable levels and overall plan quality was comparable to plans delivered on conventional C‐arm LINACs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6839381
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68393812019-11-14 Field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack MLC LINAC using flattening‐filter‐free beams Morris, Robert Laugeman, Eric Hilliard, Jessica Zoberi, Imran Heerman, Ana Hugo, Geoffrey Mutic, Sasa Cai, Bin J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics BACKGROUND: This study intends to develop an efficient field‐in‐field (FiF) planning technique with the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) to determine the feasibility of using the Halcyon treatment delivery system for 3D treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: Ten treatment plans were prepared on the Halcyon treatment planning system and compared to the same patients’ clinically delivered TrueBeam plans which used flattened 6 MV and 10 MV beams. Patients selected for this study were treated via simple, tangential breast irradiation and did not receive radiotherapy of the supraclavicular or internal mammary lymph nodes. Planning target volumes (PTV) volumes ranged from 519 cc to 1211 cc with a mean target volume of 877 cc. Several planning techniques involving collimator, gantry rotation, and number of FiF segments were investigated as well as the use of the dynamically flattened beam (DFB) — a predefined MLC pattern that is designed to provide a flattened beam profile at 10 cm depth on a standard water phantom. For comparison, the clinically delivered TrueBeam plans remained unaltered except for normalization of the target coverage to more readily compare the two treatment delivery techniques. RESULTS: Using the physician defined PTV, normalized such that 98% of the volume was covered by 95% of the prescribed dose, the Halcyon plans were deemed clinically acceptable and comparable to the TrueBeam plans by the radiation oncologist. Resulting average global maximum doses in the test patients were identical between the TrueBeam and Halcyon plans (108% of Rx) and a mean PTV dose of 102.5% vs 101.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From this study a practical and efficient planning method for delivering 3D conformal breast radiotherapy using the Halcyon linear accelerator has been developed. When normalized to the clinically desired coverage, hot spots were maintained to acceptable levels and overall plan quality was comparable to plans delivered on conventional C‐arm LINACs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6839381/ /pubmed/31617671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12722 Text en © 2019 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 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
Morris, Robert
Laugeman, Eric
Hilliard, Jessica
Zoberi, Imran
Heerman, Ana
Hugo, Geoffrey
Mutic, Sasa
Cai, Bin
Field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack MLC LINAC using flattening‐filter‐free beams
title Field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack MLC LINAC using flattening‐filter‐free beams
title_full Field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack MLC LINAC using flattening‐filter‐free beams
title_fullStr Field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack MLC LINAC using flattening‐filter‐free beams
title_full_unstemmed Field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack MLC LINAC using flattening‐filter‐free beams
title_short Field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack MLC LINAC using flattening‐filter‐free beams
title_sort field‐in‐field breast planning for a jawless, double‐stack mlc linac using flattening‐filter‐free beams
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31617671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12722
work_keys_str_mv AT morrisrobert fieldinfieldbreastplanningforajawlessdoublestackmlclinacusingflatteningfilterfreebeams
AT laugemaneric fieldinfieldbreastplanningforajawlessdoublestackmlclinacusingflatteningfilterfreebeams
AT hilliardjessica fieldinfieldbreastplanningforajawlessdoublestackmlclinacusingflatteningfilterfreebeams
AT zoberiimran fieldinfieldbreastplanningforajawlessdoublestackmlclinacusingflatteningfilterfreebeams
AT heermanana fieldinfieldbreastplanningforajawlessdoublestackmlclinacusingflatteningfilterfreebeams
AT hugogeoffrey fieldinfieldbreastplanningforajawlessdoublestackmlclinacusingflatteningfilterfreebeams
AT muticsasa fieldinfieldbreastplanningforajawlessdoublestackmlclinacusingflatteningfilterfreebeams
AT caibin fieldinfieldbreastplanningforajawlessdoublestackmlclinacusingflatteningfilterfreebeams