The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy (대한방사선치료학회지)

Korean Society for Radiation Therapy (대한방사선치료학회)
권호 표지

Evaluating efficiency of Split VMAT plan for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes

골반 림프선을 포함한 전립선암 치료 시 Split VMAT plan의 유용성 평가

  • Mun, Jun Ki (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Son, Sang Jun (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Dae Ho (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Seo, Seok Jin (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 문준기 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 손상준 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김대호 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 서석진 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과)
  • Received : 2015.11.20
  • Accepted : 2015.12.14
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of Split VMAT planning(Contouring rectum divided into an upper and a lower for reduce rectum dose) compare to Conventional VMAT planning(Contouring whole rectum) for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes. Materials and Methods : A total of 9 cases were enrolled. Each case received radiotherapy with Split VMAT planning to the prostate involving pelvic lymph nodes. Treatment was delivered using TrueBeam STX(Varian Medical Systems, USA) and planned on Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28), AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). Lower rectum contour was defined as starting 1cm superior and ending 1cm inferior to the prostate PTV, upper rectum is a part, except lower rectum from the whole rectum. Split VMAT plan parameters consisted of 10MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ arcs. Each arc had $30^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$ collimator angle, respectively. An SIB(Simultaneous Integrated Boost) treatment prescription was employed delivering 50.4Gy to pelvic lymph nodes and 63~70Gy to the prostate in 28 fractions. $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum on Split VMAT plan was applied for DVC(Dose Volume Constraint) of the whole rectum for Conventional VMAT plan. In addition, all parameters were set to be the same of existing treatment plans. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively using a 0.2cm grid. All plans were normalized to the prostate $PTV_{100%}$ = 90% or 95%. A comparison of $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum, upperr ectum, lower rectum, and bladder, $V_{50%}$ of upper rectum, total MU and H.I.(Homogeneity Index) and C.I.(Conformity Index) of the PTV was used for technique evaluation. All Split VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : Using DVH analysis, a difference between the Conventional and the Split VMAT plans was demonstrated. The Split VMAT plan demonstrated better in the $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum, Up to 134.4 cGy, at least 43.5 cGy, the average difference was 75.6 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of upper rectum, Up to 1113.5 cGy, at least 87.2 cGy, the average difference was 550.5 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of lower rectum, Up to 100.5 cGy, at least -34.6 cGy, the average difference was 34.3 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of bladder, Up to 271 cGy, at least -55.5 cGy, the average difference was 117.8 cGy and in $V_{50%}$ of upper rectum, Up to 63.4%, at least 3.2%, the average difference was 23.2%. There was no significant difference on H.I., and C.I. of the PTV among two plans. The Split VMAT plan is average 77 MU more than another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the Split VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2 mm / 2%. Conclusion : As a result, the Split VMAT plan appeared to be more favorable in most cases than the Conventional VMAT plan for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes. By using the split VMAT planning technique it was possible to reduce the upper rectum dose, thus reducing whole rectal dose when compared to conventional VMAT planning. Also using the split VMAT planning technique increase the treatment efficiency.

목 적 : 골반 림프선을 포함한 전립선암 치료 시 기존 치료방법인 직장 전체를 윤곽 그리기한 2회전 치료계획(이하 Conventional VMAT plan)과 직장의 선량을 낮추기 위하여 상부와 하부로 나누어 윤곽 그리기한 2회전 치료계획(이하 Split VMAT plan)의 유용성을 비교, 평가하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법 : 본원에서 TrueBeam STX(Varian Medical Systems, USA)를 이용하여, Split VMAT plan으로 방사선치료를 받은 전립선암 환자 9명을 대상으로 하였다. 전산화치료계획은 Eclipse(Ver 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28), AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver 10.0.28) 알고리즘을 사용하였다. 전립선 PTV의 Superior 방향으로 1 cm부터 Inferior방향으로 1 cm까지를 하부 직장으로, 전체 직장에서 직장 하부를 제외한 부분을 상부 직장으로 윤곽 그리기(Contouring) 하였다. 치료계획은 콜리메이터 각도 $30^{\circ}$, $330^{\circ}$, 겐트리 회전반경이 각각 $360^{\circ}$인 두 개의 ARC, 10MV를 이용하였다. 처방 선량은 28회에 걸쳐 동시 추가 분할 선량법(Simultaneous Integrated Boost, SIB)으로 전립선에 총 선량이 각각 63~70 Gy, 골반 림프선에 총 선량이 50.4 Gy가 되도록 하였다. Split VMAT plan을 통해 도출된 전체 직장의 $D_{mean}$를 Conventional VMAT plan에서 전체 직장의 선량용적제한 값으로 설정하여 Conventional VMAT plan을 수립하였고, 그 외에 모든 조건은 동일하게 설정하였다. 모든 치료계획은 최적화 과정에서 나타나는 선량 차이의 무작위성을 최소화하기 위하여 각각 2회의 최적화와 선량 계산 과정을 거쳤으며 전립선 PTV100% = 90% 또는 95%로 Normalize 하였다. 전체 상부 하부 직장의 평균선량, 방광의 평균선량, 상부 직장의 $V_{50%}$, 각 치료 계획의 Total MU, 그리고 PTV의 H.I.(Homogeneity Index), C.I.(Conformity Index)를 평가 지표로 설정하였고, 전자영상유도장치를 이용하여 임상 적용 가능 여부 확인을 위한 IMRT verification QA(Gamma test)를 실시하였다. 결 과 : 두 치료계획의 평균선량을 비교한 결과 전체 직장은 최대 134.4 cGy, 최소 43.5 cGy, 평균 75.6 cGy로, 하부 직장은 최대 100.5 cGy, 최소 -34.6 cGy, 평균 34.3 cGy로, 상부 직장 은 최대 1113.5 cGy, 최소 87.2 cGy, 평균 550.5 cGy로, 방광은 최대 271 cGy, 최소 -55.5 cGy, 평균 117.8 cGy로 모두 Split VMAT plan이 낮은 값을 보였다. 상부 직장의 V50%도 최대 63.4%, 최소 3.2%, 평균 23.2%로 Split VMAT plan이 낮은 것으로 나타났다. Total MU는 Split VMAT plan이 최대 148, 최소 7로, 평균 77 더 많이 사용하는 것으로 나타났다. PTV에 대한 H.I.와 C.I.는 두 치료계획 모두 서로 비슷한 결과를 나타냈다. Split VMAT plan에 대한 IMRT verification QA 결과 2 mm / 2%, Gamma pass rate 90.0% 기준을 모두 통과하였다. 결 론 : 골반 림프선을 포함한 전립선암 치료 시 Split VMAT plan은 Conventional VMAT plan과 비교하여 대부분의 평가지표에서 유리한 것으로 나타냈으며 치료효율을 높이면서 특히 상부 직장 선량을 감소시켜 전체 직장 선량을 낮추는데 탁월한 효과를 나타냈기 때문에 이를 적용시켜 방사선 치료효과를 높이는 것이 중요할 것이라 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Oh CM, Seo HG, Lee JS. Cancerstatistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival and prevalencein 2010. Cancer Res Treat 2013;45:1-14. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2013.45.1.1
  2. Zienman AL, Bae K, slater JD,et al. Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long term result frome proton radiation oncology group/ American college of radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol 2012;28:1106-1111.
  3. Won park. Diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. J Korean med assoc. 2015;58(1):5-6 https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2015.58.1.5
  4. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Happersett L, et al. Clinical experience with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2000;55:241-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00100-0
  5. Davidson MT, Blake SJ, Batchelar DL, Cheung P, Mah K. Assessing the role of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) relative to IMRT and helical tomotherapy in the management of localized, locally advanced, and post-operative prostate cancer. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:1550-1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.024
  6. Fontenot JD, King ML, Johnson SA, Wood CG, Price MJ, Lo KK. Single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy can provide dose distributions equivalent to fixed-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostatic irradiation with seminal vesicle and/or lymph node involvement. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:231-236. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/94843998
  7. Hall WA, Fox TH, Jiang X, et al. Treatment efficiency of volumetric modulated arc therapy in comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:128-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.06.014
  8. Shaffer R, Morris WJ, Moiseenko V, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy and conventional intensitymodulated radiotherapy for simultaneous maximal intraprostatic boost: A planning comparison study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2009;21:401-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2009.01.014
  9. Pengpeng Zhang, Laura Happersett, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy and evaluation of prostate cancer cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:1456-1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.033
  10. Hall EJ : Intensity-modulated arc therapy, protons, and the risk of second cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.01.027
  11. 박혜진, 김미화, 전미선 외 2인 : 아주대학교병원에서의 전립선암에 대한 래피드아크치료. 의학물리. 2010;2:183-191.
  12. D. Palma, E. Vollans, et al : Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for delivery of prostate Radiotherapy: Comparison with Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:996-1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.047
  13. Tsai CL, Wu JK, Chao HL, Tsai YC, Cheng JC. Treatment and dosimetric advantages between VMAT, IMRT, and helical tomotherapy in prostate cancer. Med Dosim. 2011;36:264-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2010.05.001
  14. Wolff D, Stieler F, Welzel G, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3Dconformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93:226-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.011
  15. S. Yoo, Q. Jackie Wu, et al : Radiotherapy Treatmens plans with Rapidarc for prostate cancer involving seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:935-942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1677
  16. Sten Myrehaug, Gordon Chan, et al. A Treatment planning and acute toxicity comparison of two pelvic nodal volume delineation techniques and delivery comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for hypofractionated high-risk prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:657-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.006
  17. Eugenio Vanetti, Giorgia Nicolini, et al. On the role of the optimization algorithm of $RapidArc^{(R)}$ volumetric modulated arc therapy on plan quality and efficiency : Medical Physics 2011;38(11):5844-5846. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3641866
  18. Stephen F. Kry, Mohammad Salehpour, David S. Followill et al : The calculated risk of fatal secondary malignancies from intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:1195-1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.053