Purpose: The experimental verification of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was conducted in a heterogeneous rectangular slab phantom, and compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The dosimetric impact of t...Purpose: The experimental verification of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was conducted in a heterogeneous rectangular slab phantom, and compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The dosimetric impact of the AXB for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and RapidArc planning for 16 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was assessed due to the dose recalculation from the AAA to the AXB. Methods: The calculated central axis percentage depth doses (PDD) in a heterogeneous slab phantom for an open field size of 3 ×3 cm2 were compared against the PDD measured by an ionization chamber. For 16 NSCLC patients, the dose-volume parameters from the treatment plans calculated by the AXB and the AAA were compared using identical jaw settings, leaf positions, and monitor units (MUs). Results: The results from the heterogeneous slab phantom study showed that the AXB was more accurate than the AAA;however, the dose underestimation by the AXB (up to ?3.9%) and AAA (up to ?13.5%) was observed. For a planning target volume (PTV) in the NSCLC patients, in comparison to the AAA, the AXB predicted lower mean and minimum doses by average 0.3% and 4.3% respectively, but a higher maximum dose by average 2.3%. The averaged maximum doses to the heart and spinal cord predicted by the AXB were lower by 1.3% and 2.6% respectively;whereas the doses to the lungs predicted by the AXB were higher by up to 0.5% compared to the AAA. The percentage of ipsilateral lung volume receiving at least 20 and 5 Gy (V20 and V5 respectively) were higher in the AXB plans than in the AAA plans by average 1.1% and 2.8% respectively. The AXB plans produced higher target heterogeneity by average 4.5% and lower plan conformity by average 5.8% compared to the AAA plans. Using the AXB, the PTV coverage (95% of the PTV covered by the 100% of the prescribed dose) was reduced by average 8.2% than using the AAA. The AXB plans required about 2.3% increment in the number of MUs in order to achieve the same PTV coverage as in the AAA plans. Conclusion: The AXB is more accurate to use for the dose calculations in SBRT lung plans created with a RapidArc technique;however, one should also note the reduced PTV coverage due to the dose recalculation from the AAA to the AXB.展开更多
Background: Giant cell tumors of the lumbar spine are rare and complete resection without major functional comprise is challenging despite advancements in spine surgery techniques. Radiation therapy has been an option...Background: Giant cell tumors of the lumbar spine are rare and complete resection without major functional comprise is challenging despite advancements in spine surgery techniques. Radiation therapy has been an option in such cases;however there are high concerns for associated high small bowel toxicity and lack of dose escalation to achieve local control. With advent of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) it is now possible to give high radiation dose to tumor with minimal toxicity. Herein we present a rare case of giant cell tumor of fourth lumbar (L4) vertebra treated with RapidArc intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with relevant review of literature. Methods: A 30-year-old female had low back pain for 6 months. She underwent surgical decompression at another hospital as having a L4-5 protruded intervertebral disc 2 months previously, but her back pain progressed with weakness of both legs with restricted movement. Radiological and pathological work-up confirmed the diagnosis of giant cell tumor of L4 vertebra. She refused further surgery and was referred to us for radiotherapy. Treatment plans for prescribed radiation dose of 59.4 Gy in 30 fractions were made by 3DCRT and RapidArc IMAT and comparison was made. Student’s unpaired t test was used to determine the significance of the difference between two plans in terms of dose to the tumor and small bowel. A p value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Related literature was searched. Results: In RapidArc IMAT and 3DCRT plans mean doses to planning treatment volume (PTV) were 61.24 Gy (55.98 - 66.23) and 60.71 Gy (49.87 - 63.74) respectively (p 0.04) and mean doses to small bowel were found lesser in RapidArc plan [14.78 Gy (range: 0.39 - 53.15)] as compared to 3DCRT plan. Patient was started on RapidArc IMRT and she completed the course without any major sequelae. Conclusion: Lumbar spine giant cell tumors are rare and complete resection is often not possible. RapidArc IMAT is a feasible option for such patients to deliver high dose radiation to achieve good local control with marked symptom relief and without severe toxicity.展开更多
The Halcyon O-ring gantry linear accelerator from Varian Medical Systems is delivered with a hardcoded beam-source model and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm dose calculation algorithm as standard, while the Acuros XB...The Halcyon O-ring gantry linear accelerator from Varian Medical Systems is delivered with a hardcoded beam-source model and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm dose calculation algorithm as standard, while the Acuros XB algorithm is a purchasable option. The models in both algorithms are factory-configured and do not permit fine-tuning by the user. In this study, we compared the two algorithms for sequential boost RapidArc treatment planning of Head & Neck cancers using D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% and maximum dose to assess dose coverage of nodal and tumor planning target volumes (PTV_N and PTV_T, respectively), and cochlear D5%, parotid D20%, D50%, mean dose, and cord maximum dose to evaluate doses to organs- at-risk. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and total number of monitor units (MU) quantified plan quality. We found statistically significant differences in PTV_N D2%, maximum dose, HI, PTV_T D98%, D95%, D2%, Max, HI, and total MU. Statistically significant differences in Cochlear D5% and Parotid mean doses were also encountered. These differences may not necessarily be clinically significant, however. Therefore, we believe that both calculation algorithms are adequate for RapidArc planning of Head & Neck cancers.展开更多
The volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT)technique,in the form of RapidArc,is widely used to treat prostate cancer.The full-single arc(f-SA)technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment provides effici...The volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT)technique,in the form of RapidArc,is widely used to treat prostate cancer.The full-single arc(f-SA)technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment provides efficient treatment,but it also delivers a higher radiation dose to the rectum.This study aimed to compare the dosimetric results from the new partial-single arc(p-SA)technique with those from the f-SA technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment.In this study,10 patients with lowrisk prostate cancer were selected.For each patient,two sets of RapidArc plans(f-SA and p-SA)were created in the Eclipse treatment planning system.The f-SA plan was created using one full arc,and the p-SA plan was created using planning parameters identical to those of the f-SA plan but with anterior and posterior avoidance sectors.Various dosimetric parameters of the f-SA and p-SA plans were evaluated and compared for the same target coverage and identical plan optimization parameters.The f-SA and p-SA plans showed an average difference of±1%for the doses to the planning target volume(PTV),and there were no clear differences in dose homogeneity or plan conformity.In comparison to the f-SA technique,the p-SA technique reduced the doses to the rectum by approximately 6.1%to 21.2%,to the bladder by approximately 10.3%to 29.5%,and to the penile bulb by approximately 2.2%.In contrast,the dose to the femoral heads,the integral dose,and the number of monitor units were higher in the p-SA plans by approximately 34.4%,7.7%,and 9.2%,respectively.In conclusion,it is feasible to use the p-SA technique for RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment.For the same PTV coverage and identical plan optimization parameters,the p-SA technique is better in sparing the rectum and bladder without compromising plan conformity or target homogeneity when compared to the f-SA technique.展开更多
文摘Purpose: The experimental verification of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was conducted in a heterogeneous rectangular slab phantom, and compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The dosimetric impact of the AXB for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and RapidArc planning for 16 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was assessed due to the dose recalculation from the AAA to the AXB. Methods: The calculated central axis percentage depth doses (PDD) in a heterogeneous slab phantom for an open field size of 3 ×3 cm2 were compared against the PDD measured by an ionization chamber. For 16 NSCLC patients, the dose-volume parameters from the treatment plans calculated by the AXB and the AAA were compared using identical jaw settings, leaf positions, and monitor units (MUs). Results: The results from the heterogeneous slab phantom study showed that the AXB was more accurate than the AAA;however, the dose underestimation by the AXB (up to ?3.9%) and AAA (up to ?13.5%) was observed. For a planning target volume (PTV) in the NSCLC patients, in comparison to the AAA, the AXB predicted lower mean and minimum doses by average 0.3% and 4.3% respectively, but a higher maximum dose by average 2.3%. The averaged maximum doses to the heart and spinal cord predicted by the AXB were lower by 1.3% and 2.6% respectively;whereas the doses to the lungs predicted by the AXB were higher by up to 0.5% compared to the AAA. The percentage of ipsilateral lung volume receiving at least 20 and 5 Gy (V20 and V5 respectively) were higher in the AXB plans than in the AAA plans by average 1.1% and 2.8% respectively. The AXB plans produced higher target heterogeneity by average 4.5% and lower plan conformity by average 5.8% compared to the AAA plans. Using the AXB, the PTV coverage (95% of the PTV covered by the 100% of the prescribed dose) was reduced by average 8.2% than using the AAA. The AXB plans required about 2.3% increment in the number of MUs in order to achieve the same PTV coverage as in the AAA plans. Conclusion: The AXB is more accurate to use for the dose calculations in SBRT lung plans created with a RapidArc technique;however, one should also note the reduced PTV coverage due to the dose recalculation from the AAA to the AXB.
文摘Background: Giant cell tumors of the lumbar spine are rare and complete resection without major functional comprise is challenging despite advancements in spine surgery techniques. Radiation therapy has been an option in such cases;however there are high concerns for associated high small bowel toxicity and lack of dose escalation to achieve local control. With advent of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) it is now possible to give high radiation dose to tumor with minimal toxicity. Herein we present a rare case of giant cell tumor of fourth lumbar (L4) vertebra treated with RapidArc intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with relevant review of literature. Methods: A 30-year-old female had low back pain for 6 months. She underwent surgical decompression at another hospital as having a L4-5 protruded intervertebral disc 2 months previously, but her back pain progressed with weakness of both legs with restricted movement. Radiological and pathological work-up confirmed the diagnosis of giant cell tumor of L4 vertebra. She refused further surgery and was referred to us for radiotherapy. Treatment plans for prescribed radiation dose of 59.4 Gy in 30 fractions were made by 3DCRT and RapidArc IMAT and comparison was made. Student’s unpaired t test was used to determine the significance of the difference between two plans in terms of dose to the tumor and small bowel. A p value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Related literature was searched. Results: In RapidArc IMAT and 3DCRT plans mean doses to planning treatment volume (PTV) were 61.24 Gy (55.98 - 66.23) and 60.71 Gy (49.87 - 63.74) respectively (p 0.04) and mean doses to small bowel were found lesser in RapidArc plan [14.78 Gy (range: 0.39 - 53.15)] as compared to 3DCRT plan. Patient was started on RapidArc IMRT and she completed the course without any major sequelae. Conclusion: Lumbar spine giant cell tumors are rare and complete resection is often not possible. RapidArc IMAT is a feasible option for such patients to deliver high dose radiation to achieve good local control with marked symptom relief and without severe toxicity.
文摘The Halcyon O-ring gantry linear accelerator from Varian Medical Systems is delivered with a hardcoded beam-source model and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm dose calculation algorithm as standard, while the Acuros XB algorithm is a purchasable option. The models in both algorithms are factory-configured and do not permit fine-tuning by the user. In this study, we compared the two algorithms for sequential boost RapidArc treatment planning of Head & Neck cancers using D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% and maximum dose to assess dose coverage of nodal and tumor planning target volumes (PTV_N and PTV_T, respectively), and cochlear D5%, parotid D20%, D50%, mean dose, and cord maximum dose to evaluate doses to organs- at-risk. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and total number of monitor units (MU) quantified plan quality. We found statistically significant differences in PTV_N D2%, maximum dose, HI, PTV_T D98%, D95%, D2%, Max, HI, and total MU. Statistically significant differences in Cochlear D5% and Parotid mean doses were also encountered. These differences may not necessarily be clinically significant, however. Therefore, we believe that both calculation algorithms are adequate for RapidArc planning of Head & Neck cancers.
文摘The volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT)technique,in the form of RapidArc,is widely used to treat prostate cancer.The full-single arc(f-SA)technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment provides efficient treatment,but it also delivers a higher radiation dose to the rectum.This study aimed to compare the dosimetric results from the new partial-single arc(p-SA)technique with those from the f-SA technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment.In this study,10 patients with lowrisk prostate cancer were selected.For each patient,two sets of RapidArc plans(f-SA and p-SA)were created in the Eclipse treatment planning system.The f-SA plan was created using one full arc,and the p-SA plan was created using planning parameters identical to those of the f-SA plan but with anterior and posterior avoidance sectors.Various dosimetric parameters of the f-SA and p-SA plans were evaluated and compared for the same target coverage and identical plan optimization parameters.The f-SA and p-SA plans showed an average difference of±1%for the doses to the planning target volume(PTV),and there were no clear differences in dose homogeneity or plan conformity.In comparison to the f-SA technique,the p-SA technique reduced the doses to the rectum by approximately 6.1%to 21.2%,to the bladder by approximately 10.3%to 29.5%,and to the penile bulb by approximately 2.2%.In contrast,the dose to the femoral heads,the integral dose,and the number of monitor units were higher in the p-SA plans by approximately 34.4%,7.7%,and 9.2%,respectively.In conclusion,it is feasible to use the p-SA technique for RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment.For the same PTV coverage and identical plan optimization parameters,the p-SA technique is better in sparing the rectum and bladder without compromising plan conformity or target homogeneity when compared to the f-SA technique.
