Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi-criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer

被引:0
|
作者
Rolland, Julien [1 ,2 ]
Favrel, Veronique [3 ]
Fau, Pierre [2 ]
Mailleux, Hugues [2 ]
Tallet, Agnes
机构
[1] Ctr Hosp InterCommunal Alpes Sud, Dept Med Phys, Gap, France
[2] Inst Paoli Calmettes, Dept Med Phys, Marseille, France
[3] Inst Paoli Calmettes, Dept Radiotherapy, Marseille, France
来源
关键词
H&N; MCO; QA; sliding windows; VMAT; volumetric modulated arc therapy; APERTURE COMPLEXITY; NRG ONCOLOGY; NCIC CTG; RADIOTHERAPY; DELINEATION; CARCINOMA; HKNPCSG; DAHANCA; GORTEC; EORTC;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.14013
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PurposeA new development on the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) allows a plan to be planned by imposing a constraint on the leaf sequencing: all leaves move in the same direction before moving again in the opposite direction to create a succession of sliding windows (SWs). The study aims to investigate this new leaf sequencing, coupled with standard optimization (SO) and multi-criteria optimization (MCO) and to compare it with the standard sequencing (STD). MethodsSixty plans were replanned for 10 head and neck cancer patients (two dose levels simultaneously SIB, 56 and 70 Gy in 35 fractions). All plans were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed. Pre-processing QA and metrics of multileaf collimator (MLC) complexity were studied. ResultsAll methodologies met the dose requirements for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). SO demonstrates significantly best results for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and target coverage (TC). SO-SW gives best results for PTVs (D-98% and D-2%) but the differences between techniques are less than 1%. Only the D-2%,D-PTV-56 Gy is higher with both MCO methods. MCO-STD offer the best sparing OARs (parotids, spinal cord, larynx, oral cavity). The gamma passing rates (GPRs) with 3%/3 mm criteria between the measured and calculated dose distributions are higher than 95%, slightly lowest with SW. The number of monitor units (MUs) and MLC metrics are higher in SW show a higher modulation. ConclusionsAll plans are feasible for the treatment. A clear advantage of SO-SW is that the treatment plan is more straightforward to planning by the user due to the more advanced modulation. MCO stands out for its ease of use and will allow a less experienced user to offer a better plan than in SO. In addition, MCO-STD will reduce the dose to the OARs while maintaining good TC.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 6 条
  • [1] Dosimetric Comparison of Multi-Criteria Optimization and Direct Machine Parameters Optimization Generated VMAT Plans for Head and Neck
    Fellows, Z.
    Chen, S.
    Guerrero, M.
    Snider, J.
    Mossahebi, S.
    Spaeth, K.
    Lamichhane, N.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 2931 - 2931
  • [2] Multi-Criteria Optimization with sliding-window VMAT delivery vs classical VMAT in H&N and SBRT
    Lee, W. Y. V.
    Leung, R.
    Wong, M.
    Cheung, S.
    Kwan, K.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2019, 141 : S80 - S80
  • [3] Clinical and dosimetric evaluation of RapidArc versus standard sliding window IMRT in the treatment of head and neck cancer
    Smet, Stephanie
    Lambrecht, Maarten
    Vanstraelen, Bianca
    Nuyts, Sandra
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2015, 191 (01) : 43 - 50
  • [4] Comparison of Multi-Criteria Optimization together with RapidPlan for Head & Neck treatment.
    Chumacero, E. Miguel
    Johnston, A.
    Currie, G.
    Currie, S.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2018, 127 : S492 - S492
  • [5] Clinical Acceptability and Preliminary Robustness Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Optimization of VMAT Comprehensive Breast Cancer Treatment Plans
    McCarroll, R.
    Lasio, G.
    Chen, S.
    Guerrero, M.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E216 - E216
  • [6] Clinical and dosimetric evaluation of RapidArc versus standard sliding window IMRT in the treatment of head and neck cancer [Klinische und dosimetrische Auswertung von RapidArc versus dynamischer („sliding-window“) IMRT bei der Behandlung von Kopf-Hals-Tumoren]
    Smet S.
    Lambrecht M.
    Vanstraelen B.
    Nuyts S.
    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 2015, 191 (1) : 43 - 50