• 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.34
• /
• pp.13-20
• /
• 2022

Purpose : IMRT using Tomotherapy during nasopharyngeal cancer radiation therapy irradiate an accurate dose to tumor tissues and is effective to reduce a dose rapidly in normal tissues. However, this has high MU and long Beam On Time. This study aims to analyze differences in tumors, normal tissues and low-dose distributions and the efficiency of Split VMAT after applying Helical IMRT (Tomotherapy), VMAT (Linac : 2Arc) and Split VMAT (Linac : 4Arc) plans. Materials and Methods : This study targeted ten nasopharyngeal cancer patients of this hospital and compared three treatment plans (Helical IMRT, VMAT, Split VMAT). For Helical IMRT planning, Precision^® (Version 1.1.1.1, Accuray, USA) was used, and for VMAT and Split VMAT planning, Pinnacle^3® (Version 9.10, Philips, USA) was used. The total dose applied was 38.4 Gy / 32 Gy (Daily Dose 2.4 Gy (GTV + 0.3 cm) / 2 Gy (CTV + 0.3 cm) 16Fx), and for GTV + 0.3 cm (P_GTV), 95% of V_38.4Gy was prescribed. VMAT with an angle of 360° 2Arc was applied, and for Split VMAT, the field was divided into the right, the left, the top and the bottom and an angle of 360° 4Arc, 6MV was set. For evaluating the quality of the treatment plans, differences in tumors, normal tissues and low-dose area were compared, and Beam On Time was measured to analyze the efficiency. Results : When calculating the mean values of evaluation items of the three treatment plans (Helical IMRT, VMAT, Split VMAT) for the patients, the H.I (Homogeneity Index) of P_GTV was 1.04, 1.11 and 1.1 respectively, and the C.I (Confomity Index) of P_CTV was 1.03, 0.99 and 1.00 respectively. The mean dose of RT Parotid Gland (Gy) was 14.54, 17.06 and 14.76 respectively, the mean dose of LT Parotid Gland (Gy) was 14.32, 17.32 and 15.09 respectively, the maximum dose of P_Cord (Spinal Cord + 0.3 cm) (Gy) was 20.57, 22.59 and 21.06 respectively, and the maximum dose of Brain Stem (Gy) was 22.35, 23.99 and 21.68 respectively. The 50% isodose curve (cc) was 1332, 1132.5 and 1065.2 respectively. Beam On Time (sec) was 373.7, 130.7 and 254.4 respectively. Conclusion : Displaying a similar treatment plan quality to Helical IMRT, which is used a lot for head and neck treatment, Split VMAT reduced the low-dose area and Beam On Time and produced a better result than VMAT. Therefore, it is considered that Split VMAT is effective not only for nasopharyngeal cancer but also for other head and neck cancers.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.19-26
• /
• 2017

Objectives: In the Lung, the VMAT rotates continuously and examines radiation. That increases the low doses to normal lung. Due to that, the incidence of radiation pneumonia among radiation side effects may increase. The cause of radiation pneumonia is the lower dose area of the lungs. The H-VMAT was applied to patients who applied to reduce radiation in the lower doses of the lungs. We wanted to assess the usefulness of the H-VMAT by comparing the radiation doses to the low dose areas of the lungs and the normal organs. Materials and Methods: A total of 26 patients who applied for a H-VMAT procedure were applied to the patient. The prescription dose applied to total dose 44 Gy from 22 divisions. For each patient, a plan was implemented with Conventional RT, VMAT and H-VMAT. Conventional RT was carried out in four to five fields each, considering the size, location, shape, and location of the PTV. In the case of a VMAT plan, the two Half ARC, three Half ARC method and the two Full ARC were planned. The H-VMAT was planned by adding two Static fields in the VMAT, taking into account the dose of the lung and the tolerance dose of the organs. Results: In the NSCLC, the lung doses $V_5$ and $V_{10}$ of the lungs except for the treatment plan volume were the lowest with $55.40{\pm}13.39%$ and $32.05{\pm}11.37%$ of H-VMAT. And, in the SCLC, the lung doses of V5 and V10 were the lowest at $64.32{\pm}16.15%$ and $35.50{\pm}9.91%$, respectively. The spinal dose of VMAT in NSCLC was $21.15{\pm}4.02Gy$, which was 7.94 Gy lower than other treatment methods. The lowest spinal dose was delivered at $19.72{\pm}1.82Gy$ for SCLC. The mean dose delivered to the esophagus was also $17.44{\pm}2.04Gy$ and $17.84{\pm}9.20Gy$ in SCLC and NSCLC, respectively. Conclusion: When comparing the value of the surrounding normal organ dose, the VMAT showed that less doses were transmitted from the heart, esophagus and spinal cord than the rest of the treatment plan. However, it was similar to VMAT in normal organs except for the spinal cord. VMAT has increased doses of some normal organs but did not exceed the tolerance dose. It showed a low value in $V_5$, $V_{10}$. When comparing Conventional RT, VMAT, and H-VMAT, If the dose to the heart, esophagus and spinal cord is lower than the tolerance dose, it is thought to reduce the incidence of radiation pneumonia by applying H-VMAT that show the benefits of low doses of the lungs.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of Coaxial MLC VMAT plan (Using $273^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$ collimator angle) That the leaf motion direction aligned with axis of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.) compare to Universal MLC VMAT plan (using $30^{\circ}$ and $330^{\circ}$ collimator angle) for spine SBRT. Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of spine SBRT that treated with VMAT planned by Coaxial MLC and Varian TBX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse (Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3 (Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA (Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28) with coplanar $360^{\circ}$ arcs and 10MV FFF (Flattening filter free). Each arc has $273^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$ collimator angle, respectively. The Universal MLC VMAT plans are based on existing treatment plans. Those plans have the same parameters of existing treatment plans but collimator angle. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively. The calculation grid is 0.2 cm and all plans were normalized to the target V100%=90%. The indexes of evaluation are V10Gy, D0.03cc, Dmean of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.), H.I (Homogeneity index) of the target and total MU. All Coaxial VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with Mapcheck2 (Sun Nuclear Co., USA), Mapphan (Sun Nuclear Co., USA) and SNC patient (Sun Nuclear Co., USA Ver 6.1.2.18513). Results : The difference between the coaxial and the universal VMAT plans are follow. The coaxial VMAT plan is better in the V10Gy of OAR, Up to 4.1%, at least 0.4%, the average difference was 1.9% and In the D0.03cc of OAR, Up to 83.6 cGy, at least 2.2 cGy, the average difference was 33.3 cGy. In Dmean, Up to 34.8 cGy, at least -13.0 cGy, the average difference was 9.6 cGy that say the coaxial VMAT plans are better except few cases. H.I difference Up to 0.04, at least 0.01, the average difference was 0.02 and the difference of average total MU is 74.1 MU. The coaxial MLC VMAT plan is average 74.1 MU lesser then another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the coaxial MLC VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 1mm / 2%. Conclusion : Coaxial MLC VMAT treatment plan appeared to be favorable in most cases than the Universal MLC VMAT treatment planning. It is efficient in lowering the dose of the OAR V10Gy especially. As a result, the Coaxial MLC VMAT plan could be better than the Universal MLC VMAT plan in same MU.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.137-144
• /
• 2021

Purpose : The usability of X-Jaw split VMAT was evaluated by comparative analysis of the dose distribution between the treatment plan divided by X-Jaw and Full field VMAT treatment plan in left breast cancer treatment including supraclavicular lymph nodes. Materials and Methods : 10 patients with left breast cancer, including supraclavicular lymph nodes, were simulated using vacuum cushion, and 2 Full field Arc VMAT and 4 X-Jaw split Arc VMAT were planned The treatment plan was designed to include more than 95% of the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and to be minimally irradiated in the surrounding Organ at risk (OAR). Dose analysis of PTV and OAR was performed through dose volume histogram (DVH). Results : The Full field VMAT treatment plan and the X-Jaw split VMAT treatment plan of 10 patients were expressed as average values and compared. The difference between the two treatment plans was not large, with a Conformity index (CI) of 1.05±0.04, 1.04±0.03, and a Homogeneity index (HI) of 1.07±0.008, 1.07±0.009. For OAR, V5 in the left lung is 56.1±6.50%, 50.4±6.30%, and V20 is 20.0±4.15%, 13.52±3.61%. Compared to Full field VMAT, V5 decreased by 10.0% V20 by 32.6% in X-Jaw split VMAT. The V30 of the heart is 3.68±1.85%, 2.23±1.52%, and the Mean dose is 8.93±1.65 Gy, 7.67±1.52 Gy. In the X-Jaw split VMAT, V30 decreased by 39.3% and the Mean dose decreased by 14.1%. The left lung and heart, which are normal tissues, were found to have a statistical significance of that p-value is less than 0.05. Conclusion : In the case of left breast cancer treatment, which includes Supraclavicular lymph nodes with a large PTV volume and a length of X Jaw of 15 cm or more, the X-Jaw split VMAT shows improved dose distribution, which can reduce radiation dose of OAR such as lungs and heart, while maintaining similar PTV coverage with HI and CI equivalent to Full field VMAT. It is thought to be effective in reducing radiation complications.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.145-156
• /
• 2015

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.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.54 no.10
• /
• pp.3816-3823
• /
• 2022

This work analyzed the dosimetric difference between the intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), partial/single/double-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (PA/SA/DA-VMAT) techniques in treatment planning for treating more than one target of lung cancer at different isocenters. IMRT and VMAT plans at different isocenters were created systematically using a Harold heterogeneous lung phantom. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), dose-volume histogram and mean and maximum dose of the PTV were calculated and analyzed. Furthermore, the dose-volume histogram and mean and maximum doses of the OARs such as right lung, contralateral lung and non GTV were determined from the plans. The IMRT plans showed the superior target dose coverage, higher mean and maximum values than other VMAT techniques. PA-VMAT technique shows more lung sparing and DA-VMAT increases the V_5/10/20 values of contralateral lung than other VMAT and IMRT techniques. The IMRT technique achieves highly conformal dose distribution to the target than other VMAT techniques. Comparing to the IMRT plans, the higher V_5/10/20 and mean lung dose were observed in the contralateral lung in the DA-VMAT.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.8
• /
• pp.3257-3265
• /
• 2015

Background: Radiotherapy is an important treatment of choice for breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery, and we compare the feasibility of using dual arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT2), single arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT1) and Multi-beam Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (M-IMRT) on patients after breast-conserving surgery. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with breast cancer (half right-sided and half left-sided) treated by conservative lumpectomy and requiring whole breast radiotherapy with tumor bed boost were planned with three different radiotherapy techniques: 1) VMAT1; 2) VMAT2; 3) M-IMRT. The distributions for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared. Dosimetries for all the techniques were compared. Results: All three techniques satisfied the dose constraint well. VMAT2 showed no obvious difference in the homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the PTV with respect to M-IMRT and VMAT1. VMAT2 clearly improved the treatment efficiency and can also decrease the mean dose and V5Gy of the contralateral lung. The mean dose and maximum dose of the spinal cord and contralateral breast were lower for VMAT2 than the other two techniques. The very low dose distribution (V1Gy) of the contralateral breast also showed great reduction in VMAT2 compared with the other two techniques. For the ipsilateral lung of right-sided breast cancer, the mean dose was decreased significantly in VMAT2 compared with VMAT1 and M-IMRT. The V20Gy and V30Gy of the ipsilateral lung of the left-sided breast cancer for VMAT2 showed obvious reduction compared with the other two techniques. The heart statistics of VMAT2 also decreased considerably compared to VMAT1 and M-IMRT. Conclusions: Compared to the other two techniques, the dual arc volumetric modulated arc therapy technique reduced radiation dose exposure to the organs at risk and maintained a reasonable target dose distribution.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.30 no.1_2
• /
• pp.161-167
• /
• 2018

Purpose : This study evaluates the usefulness of the Modified Hybrid-VMAT scheme with consideration of background radiation when establishing a treatment plan for multiple bone metastatic cancer including multiple tumors on the same axis. Materials and Methods : The subjects of this study consisted of five patients with multiple bone metastatic cancer on the same axis. The planning target volume(PTV) prescription dose was 30 Gy, and the treatment plan was established using Ray Station(Ray station, 5.0.2.35, Sweden). In the treatment plan for each patient, two or more tumors were set as one isocenter. A volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) plan, a hybrid VMAT(h) plan with no consideration of background radiation, and a modified hybrid VMAT(mh) with consideration of background radiation were established. Then, using each dose volume histogram(DVH), the PTV maximum dose($D_{max}$), mean dose($D_{mean}$), conformity index(CI), and homogeneity index(HI) were compared among the plans. In addition, the organ at risk(OAR) of each treatment site was evaluated, and the total MU(Monitor Unit) and treatment time were also analyzed. Results : The PTV $D_{max}$ values of VMAT, VMAT(h) and VMAT(mh) were 3188.33 cGy, 3526 cGy, and 3285.67 cGy, the $D_{mean}$ values were 3081 cGy, 3252 cGy, and 3094 cGy; the CI values were $1.35{\pm}0.19$, $1.43{\pm}0.12$, and $1.30{\pm}0.06$; the HI values were $1.06{\pm}0.01$, $1.14{\pm}0.06$, and $1.09{\pm}0.02$; and the VMAT(h) OAR value was increased 3 %, and VMAT(mh) OAR value was decreased 18 %, respectively. Furthermore, the mean MU values were 904.90, 911.73, and 1202.13, and the mean beam on times were $128.67{\pm}10.97$, $167.33{\pm}7.57$, and $190.33{\pm}4.51$ respectively. Conclusions : Applying Modified Hybrid-VMAT when treating multiple targets can prevent overdose by correcting the overlapping of doses. Furthermore, it is possible to establish a treatment plan that can protect surrounding normal organs more effectively while satisfying the inclusion of PTV dose. Long-term follow-up of many patients is necessary to confirm the clinical efficacy of Modified Hybrid-VMAT.