Cargando…

Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis

Purpose: In this study, we investigate linac volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning strategies for bilateral hip prostheses prostate patients with respect to plan quality and deliverability, while limiting entrance dose to the prostheses. Methods: Three VMAT plans were retrospectively crea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: To, David, Xhaferllari, Ilma, Liu, Manju, Liang, Jian, Knill, Cory, Nandalur, Sirisha, Gustafson, Gary, Lack, Danielle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8427923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34490809
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15330338211038490
_version_ 1783750273455357952
author To, David
Xhaferllari, Ilma
Liu, Manju
Liang, Jian
Knill, Cory
Nandalur, Sirisha
Gustafson, Gary
Lack, Danielle
author_facet To, David
Xhaferllari, Ilma
Liu, Manju
Liang, Jian
Knill, Cory
Nandalur, Sirisha
Gustafson, Gary
Lack, Danielle
author_sort To, David
collection PubMed
description Purpose: In this study, we investigate linac volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning strategies for bilateral hip prostheses prostate patients with respect to plan quality and deliverability, while limiting entrance dose to the prostheses. Methods: Three VMAT plans were retrospectively created for 20 patients: (1) partial arcs (PA), (2) 2 full arcs optimized with 500 cGy max prostheses dose (MD), and (3) 2 full arcs optimized with max dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraint of 500 cGy to 10% prostheses volume (MDVH). PA techniques contained 6 PA with beam angles that avoid entering each prosthesis. For each patient, other than prostheses constraints, the same Pinnacle VMAT optimization objectives were used. Plans were normalized with PTV D95% = 79.2 Gy prescription dose. Organ-at-risk DVH metrics, monitor units (MUs), conformality, gradient, and homogeneity indices were evaluated for each plan. Mean entrance prosthesis dose was determined in Pinnacle by converting each arc into static beams and utilizing only control points traversing each prosthesis. Plan deliverability was evaluated with SunNuclear ArcCheck measurements (gamma criteria 3%/2 mm) on an Elekta machine. Results: MD and MDVH had similar dosimetric quality, both improved DVH metrics for rectum and bladder compared to PA. Plan complexities among all plans were similar (average MUs: 441-518). Conformality, homogeneity, and gradient indices were significantly improved in MD and MDVH versus PA (P < .001). Gamma pass rates for MD (99.0 ± 1.2%) and MDVH (99.2 ± 0.99%) were comparable. A significant difference over PA was observed (96.8 ± 1.6%, P < .001). Field-by-field analysis demonstrated 12/20 PA plans resulted in fields with pass rates <95% versus 1/20 plans for MD and none for MDVH. Cumulative mean entrance doses to each prosthesis were 62.9 ± 17.7 cGy for MD plans and 83.4 ± 27.5 cGy for MDVH plans. Conclusion: MD and MDVH plans had improved dosimetric quality and deliverability over PA plans with minimal entrance doses (∼1% of prescription) to each prosthesis and are an improved alternative for bilateral prostheses prostate patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8427923
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84279232021-09-10 Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis To, David Xhaferllari, Ilma Liu, Manju Liang, Jian Knill, Cory Nandalur, Sirisha Gustafson, Gary Lack, Danielle Technol Cancer Res Treat Original Article Purpose: In this study, we investigate linac volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning strategies for bilateral hip prostheses prostate patients with respect to plan quality and deliverability, while limiting entrance dose to the prostheses. Methods: Three VMAT plans were retrospectively created for 20 patients: (1) partial arcs (PA), (2) 2 full arcs optimized with 500 cGy max prostheses dose (MD), and (3) 2 full arcs optimized with max dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraint of 500 cGy to 10% prostheses volume (MDVH). PA techniques contained 6 PA with beam angles that avoid entering each prosthesis. For each patient, other than prostheses constraints, the same Pinnacle VMAT optimization objectives were used. Plans were normalized with PTV D95% = 79.2 Gy prescription dose. Organ-at-risk DVH metrics, monitor units (MUs), conformality, gradient, and homogeneity indices were evaluated for each plan. Mean entrance prosthesis dose was determined in Pinnacle by converting each arc into static beams and utilizing only control points traversing each prosthesis. Plan deliverability was evaluated with SunNuclear ArcCheck measurements (gamma criteria 3%/2 mm) on an Elekta machine. Results: MD and MDVH had similar dosimetric quality, both improved DVH metrics for rectum and bladder compared to PA. Plan complexities among all plans were similar (average MUs: 441-518). Conformality, homogeneity, and gradient indices were significantly improved in MD and MDVH versus PA (P < .001). Gamma pass rates for MD (99.0 ± 1.2%) and MDVH (99.2 ± 0.99%) were comparable. A significant difference over PA was observed (96.8 ± 1.6%, P < .001). Field-by-field analysis demonstrated 12/20 PA plans resulted in fields with pass rates <95% versus 1/20 plans for MD and none for MDVH. Cumulative mean entrance doses to each prosthesis were 62.9 ± 17.7 cGy for MD plans and 83.4 ± 27.5 cGy for MDVH plans. Conclusion: MD and MDVH plans had improved dosimetric quality and deliverability over PA plans with minimal entrance doses (∼1% of prescription) to each prosthesis and are an improved alternative for bilateral prostheses prostate patients. SAGE Publications 2021-09-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8427923/ /pubmed/34490809 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15330338211038490 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Article
To, David
Xhaferllari, Ilma
Liu, Manju
Liang, Jian
Knill, Cory
Nandalur, Sirisha
Gustafson, Gary
Lack, Danielle
Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis
title Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis
title_full Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis
title_fullStr Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis
title_short Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis
title_sort evaluation of vmat planning strategies for prostate patients with bilateral hip prosthesis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8427923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34490809
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15330338211038490
work_keys_str_mv AT todavid evaluationofvmatplanningstrategiesforprostatepatientswithbilateralhipprosthesis
AT xhaferllariilma evaluationofvmatplanningstrategiesforprostatepatientswithbilateralhipprosthesis
AT liumanju evaluationofvmatplanningstrategiesforprostatepatientswithbilateralhipprosthesis
AT liangjian evaluationofvmatplanningstrategiesforprostatepatientswithbilateralhipprosthesis
AT knillcory evaluationofvmatplanningstrategiesforprostatepatientswithbilateralhipprosthesis
AT nandalursirisha evaluationofvmatplanningstrategiesforprostatepatientswithbilateralhipprosthesis
AT gustafsongary evaluationofvmatplanningstrategiesforprostatepatientswithbilateralhipprosthesis
AT lackdanielle evaluationofvmatplanningstrategiesforprostatepatientswithbilateralhipprosthesis