• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.179-188
• /
• 2020

Purpose: We compared noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (ncVMAT) plans to coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) plans by evaluating the dosimetric quality of each for esophageal cancer. Methods: Twenty patients treated for esophageal cancer with the cVMAT technique were retrospectively selected. The cVMAT plans consisted of three coplanar full arc beams. The ncVMAT plans consisted of two coplanar full arc beams and one noncoplanar partial arc beam ranging from 45° to 315° with a couch rotation angle of 315°±5°. For dosimetric evaluation, the dose-volumetric (DV) parameters of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were calculated for all VMAT plans. Results: No clinically noticeable differences between the cVMAT and ncVMAT plans were observed in the DV parameters of the PTV. For the lungs, the V_{13 Gy} and mean dose for ncVMAT plans were smaller than those for cVMAT plans, showing statistically significant differences. For the heart, the values of the maximum dose for cVMAT and ncVMAT plans were 53.8±2.9 and 50.9±3.3 Gy, respectively (P=0.004). For the spinal cord, the values of the maximum dose for cVMAT and ncVMAT plans were 37.1±5.1 and 34.7±5.7 Gy, respectively (P<0.001). Conclusions: The use of ncVMAT plans provides better PTV coverage and sparing of OARs compared to that of cVMAT plans for long, tube-like esophageal cancer. For esophageal cancer, the ncVMAT plans showed a more favorable plan quality than the cVMAT plans.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.30 no.1_2
• /
• pp.9-16
• /
• 2018

Purpose : Brain Stereotactic Radiosurgery can treat non-invasive diseases with high rates of complications due to surgical operations. However, brain stereotactic radiosurgery may be accompanied by radiation induced side effects such as fractionation radiation therapy because it uses radiation. The effects of Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy(C-VMAT) and Non-Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy(NC-VMAT) on surrounding normal tissues were analyzed in order to reduce the side effects caused fractionation radiation therapy such as head and neck. But, brain stereotactic radiosurgery these contents were not analyzed. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of NC-VMAT by comparing and analyzing C-VMAT and NC-VMAT in patients who underwent brain stereotactic radiosurgery. Methods and materials : With C-VMAT and NC-VMAT, 13 treatment plans for brain stereotactic radiosurgery were established. The Planning Target Volume ranged from a minimum of 0.78 cc to a maximum of 12.26 cc, Prescription doses were prescribed between 15 and 24 Gy. Treatment machine was TrueBeam STx (Varian Medical Systems, USA). The energy used in the treatment plan was 6 MV Flattening Filter Free (6FFF) X-ray. The C-VMAT treatment plan used a half 2 arc or full 2 arc treatment plan, and the NC-VMAT treatment plan used 3 to 7 Arc 40 to 190 degrees. The angle of the couch was planned to be 3-7 angles. Results : The mean value of the maximum dose was $105.1{\pm}1.37%$ in C-VMAT and $105.8{\pm}1.71%$ in NC-VMAT. Conformity index of C-VMAT was $1.08{\pm}0.08$ and homogeneity index was $1.03{\pm}0.01$. Conformity index of NC-VMAT was $1.17{\pm}0.1$ and homogeneity index was $1.04{\pm}0.01$. $V_2$, $V_8$, $V_{12}$, $V_{18}$, $V_{24}$ of the brain were $176{\pm}149.36cc$, $31.50{\pm}25.03cc$, $16.53{\pm}12.63cc$, $8.60{\pm}6.87cc$ and $4.03{\pm}3.43cc$ in the C-VMAT and $135.55{\pm}115.93cc$, $24.34{\pm}17.68cc$, $14.74{\pm}10.97cc$, $8.55{\pm}6.79cc$, $4.23{\pm}3.48cc$. Conclusions : The maximum dose, conformity index, and homogeneity index showed no significant difference between C-VMAT and NC-VMAT. $V_2$ to $V_{18}$ of the brain showed a difference of at least 0.5 % to 48 %. $V_{19}$ to $V_{24}$ of the brain showed a difference of at least 0.4 % to 4.8 %. When we compare the mean value of $V_{12}$ that Radione-crosis begins to generate, NC-VMAT has about 12.2 % less amount than C-VMAT. These results suggest that if NC-VMAT is used, the volume of $V_2$ to $V_{18}$ can be reduced, which can reduce Radionecrosis.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.117-125
• /
• 2021

Purpose: To purpose of this study is to find the correlation of the Set-up error according to the couch rotation and suggest additional margin setting for the GTV. Target and Method: Each scenario treatment plan was created by making the frequency of non-coplanar beams different among all beams. The set-up error value was measured by using the Exact System and the dose accuracy was evaluated by creating a re-treatment plan. Results: When the couch was rotated by 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°, the mean of the X-axis values was measured to be 0.29 mm, 0.26 mm, 0.51 mm, and 0.08 mm, respectively. The mean of the Y-axis values was measured to be 0.75 mm, 0.5mm, 0.35 mm, and 0.29 mm, respectively. The mean of the Z-axis values was measured to be 0.5 mm, 0.28 mm, 0.22 mm, and 0.1 mm, respectively. There were dose reductions of 0.1%, 3.1%, 1.9% in D99 for 1-NC VMAT, 2-NC VMAT, and 3-NC VMAT, respectively. Conclusion: When treating with 50% or more of non-coplanar beams among total beams, image verification is required. And it is considered to make the treatment plan by adding a 1.5 mm margin to the GTV.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.57-68
• /
• 2017

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) with fixed-field intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) using non-coplanar beam when the shape of target is irregular and the location is adjacent to organ at risk(OAR). Materials and Methods: The subjects of this study were a total of 6 patients who had radiation therapy for whole scalp(2 patients), partial scalp(2 patients), and whole ventricle(2 patients) by True Beam STX(Varian Medical Systems, USA). VMAT plans consisted of coplanar or non-coplanar arcs which can minimize the volume of OAR included in beamlets. All fixed-field IMRT plans consisted of non-coplanar beams using more than 2 angles of Couch. Results: The VMAT and IMRT plans were compared with regard to the maximum dose of both lens, both optic nerves, optic chiasm, and brain stem and the mean dose of both eyeballs and hippocampus. VMAT plans showed higher dose than ncIMRT plans at more than 6 of all OARs in every patient, and the ratio was from 1.1 times to 8.2 times. In case of total scalp and partial scalp, the volume of brain which received more than 20 Gy in the VMAT plans was 2 times larger than the volume in the ncIMRT plans. In case of whole ventricle, there was no significant difference. Target coverage was satisfied in both plans($PTV_{100%}=95%$). The maximum dose in target volume and required monitor unit(MU) of ncIMRT were higher than them of VMAT plans. Conclusion: Even though ncIMRT is less efficient than VMAT with regard to required MU and treatment time, the dose to OARs is much lower than VMAT and PTV Coverage is similar with VMAT. If the shape of target is irregular and location is adjacent to OAR, comparison VMAT plan with ncIMRT plan deserves to be considered.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.138-147
• /
• 2020

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric variations in patients of head and neck cancer treated with definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy using optimized non-coplanar (ncVMAT) beams with coplanar (cVMAT) beams using volumetric arc therapy. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two patients of head and neck cancer that had received radiotherapy using VMAT in our department were retrospectively analyzed. Each of the patients was planned using coplanar and non-coplanar orientations using an optimized couch angle and fluences. We analyzed the Conformity Index (C_IRTOG), Dose Homogeneity Index (DHI), Heterogeneity Index (HI_RTOG), low dose volume, target and organs-at-risk coverage in both the plans without changing planning optimization parameters. Results: The prescription dose ranged from 60 Gy to 70 Gy. Using ncVMAT, C_IRTOG, DHI and HI_RTOG, and tumor coverage (ID_95%) had improved, low dose spillage volume in the body V_5Gy was increased and V_10Gy was reduced. Integral dose and intensity-modulated radiation therapy factor had increased in ncVMAT. In the case of non-coplanar beam arrangements, maximum dose (D_max) of right and left humeral head were reduced significantly whereas apex of the right and left lung mean dose were increased. Conclusion: The use of ncVMAT produced better target coverage and sparing of the shoulder and soft tissue of the neck as well as the critical organ compared with the cVMAT in patients of head and neck malignancy.